Per Mr Justice A P Bhangale, Hon’ble President

1.      This is a complaint filed by the account holder having current account bearing No.366001010036108 with the Union Bank of India at Dhantoli Branch, Shriram Commercial Complex, First Floor, Wardha Road, Nagpur.  The account is in the name of Hotel Amrta with a running business for the purposes of livelihood of Sanjay Kumar Omprakash Dargan, who is proprietor of the said hotel.

2.      The opposite party – service provider as Nationalized Bank did not take precaution sufficient enough to honour two cheques. There were two cheques drawn upon self for hug sums of Rs.9.00 Lakhs each. One bearing No.1734033 dtd.04.05.2012 and another drawn upon same for sum of Rs.9.00 Lakhs dtd.04.05.2012 bearing No.174042. 

2.      Learned advocate of the complainant stated that the opposite party – bank, though the cheques were of same dates and were admittedly presented by one Mr P Kubwe, did not take care at all while honouring the said cheques in favour of the bearer and wrongfully paid the amount to that unknown person without credentials, who forged signature of the complainant.  The bank has not taken care as to who wrote the cheques and who signed those cheques before making payment.  In the result, for non-application of mind of officials of the bank concerned, the huge amounts were allowed to be withdrawn by third person who was unknown an not concerned with the current account on 05.05.2012 and 07.05.2012. 

3.      The complainant had lodged FIR bearing No.161/2012 under Section 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. That Criminal case is still pending.

4.      It is the grievance of the complainant that the opposite party, though duly served, did not bother to file their written version and were marked exparte for failure to attend the Commission pursuant to the summons issued against opposite party. One Mr Tembhurne, Advocate had appeared for the opposite party on 22.07.2015, but thereafter no one appeared for the opposite party and complainant proceeded exparte against the opposite party on 16.12.2015. 

5.      Learned advocate of the complainant relied upon the affidavit evidence in support of the complaint as also Written Notes of Arguments. He had also obtained information, which is procedural in nature, under Right to Information Act, vide application under Maharashtra Right of Information Rules, 2002 from Public Information Officer of Union Bank of India, in which the Public Information Officer of the opposite party gave information that –

“When a customer tenders cheque / loose cheque across the counter of his Base Branch, his signature should be obtained at the back of instrument.”

“If cash withdrawal is from Non-Base Branch, cash withdrawal up to Rs.One Lakh should be permitted after establishing proper identification of the drawer.”

“For the proper identification of the drawer, branches may ask for any one document of identity proof from the drawer as required for opening of account, verify the same from original and keep a Xerox copy with the paid instrument.”

6.      Thus, precautions, in the present case, were not taken by the opposite party.  In the result, the complainant suffered not only monetary loss, which he claimed, but also suffered on account of mental and physical harassment due to somebody has succeeded to forge document and to siphon off hard earned money meant for livelihood of the complainant as proprietor of the Amrta Hotel. Credentials of the third person who presented self drawn cheques ought to have been examined by the Bank as mentioned above.

7.      That being so, we are of the opinion that this is the case of gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as it had failed to take adequate precautions. It ought to have deposited the amount of Rs.18.00 Lakhs in the current account of the complainant on the same date when the grievance was made when complainant came to know about the forgery and bogus instruments presented to the opposite party.

8.      We, therefore, allow the complaint since, in our opinion, the opposite party ought to have taken adequate precautions to check credentials of presenter of cheques before honouring the cheques in the huge sum of 9.00 Lakhs each before making payment, which admittedly presented by one Mr P Kubwe a third person other than the complaint.

9.      We also grant compensation in the sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs for mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant for the considerable time in his business suffering due to payment made to the fraudulent person. The amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realisation. Amounts deposited by the appellants, if any, shall be appropriated by the complainant.

10.    The cost of litigation shall be in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. If unpaid, entire amount together with interest shall be paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Failing which, the entire amount shall carry enhanced interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.

          Copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost.