Judgment:
Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member
This appeal filed by opposite party/Bank of Baroda is directed against the order dated 13/08/1998 passed by Additional District Forum, Mumbai City (South Mumbai) in consumer complaint no.525/95(161/97), whereby the Forum below directed opp.party to pay to the complainant Rs.1lakh together with interest @15% p.a. from 01/06/1991 till realisation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the org.opp.party has filed this appeal.
It was the case of the complainant in the Forum below that the complainant had saving bank account with opposite party vide account no. 3388 since 07/08/1972. On 19/06/1991, the complainant noticed that his account was debited by a sum of Rs.1lakh. On inquiry he learnt that the opposite party had paid Rs.1lakh across the counter against the cheque bearing no.125828 from the complainants account. According to complainant, he did not sign any cheque for the said amount. After inquiry from the office of opposite party, it was revealed that the said cheque was encashed by one Shri Arvind Mehta, who was accountant and working with the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that Shri Arvind Mehta has forged the signature to the complainant and drawn Rs.1lakh from the complainants account. Mr.Mehta has also withdrawn money from the account of complainants mother, and from the account of his family members. Therefore, the complainant immediately informed about this fact to the opposite party and also to the police authorities. On 30/06/1991 the police authorities arrested Shri Arvind Mehta, who confessed that he has forged the signature of the complainant and other account holders and had withdrawn the large amount. The complainant also obtained opinion of hand-writing expert from Addl. Chief State Examiner of Documents, CI.D. Maharashtra State dated 14/02/1992. Thereafter, opposite party promised to reimburse to the complainant the amount illegally withdrawn by forged cheque by Mr.Mehta but opposite party failed to do so. Therefore, it is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party acted with negligence and failed to discharge its duties towards its customer. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint in the Forum below for deficiency in service.
Opposite party filed its written statement and admitted that sum of Rs.1lakh was debited in the complainants account and paid to Shri Arvind Mehta. It pleaded that is has done it after verifying the signature of the drawer. Opposite party has denied that signature of the complainant on that cheque was forged. Opposite party also denied that they had agreed to reimburse to the complainant in the event of handwriting opinion stating that signature was forged and opposite party finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint. After considering the affidavits and documents placed before it, Ld.District Forum allowed the complaint and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
We heard Adv.SmtVaishali Padole for appellant and Adv.M.S.Naik h/f Adv.U.B.Wavikar for respondent.
We perused the impugned order, appeal memo and also documents placed on record. The fact that the amount of Rs.1lakh was withdrawn from the complainants account is not disputed. It is the respondents case that the said cheque was not signed by him and signature on it was forged by one --Shri Arvind Mehta, who was working as an accountant in the office of --M/s. Suraj Investment and Finance Ltd. It is further contended by the respondent that this was the case of forged cheque, amount of which debited from therespondents account and respondent had also referred this matter to the handwriting expert, who had given his opinion that the signature on the cheque was not tallying with the specimen signature. On the other hand the appellant has not produced any handwriting expert opinion and they are also not ready to accept the opinion submitted by the respondent. In the present case the respondent has supported his case by submitting handwriting expert opinion. The appellant instead of investigating into the matter has tried to justify its action and has not referred the matter to the Government handwriting expert. Bank merely contended that they are not ready to accept the handwriting expert opinion produced by the respondent. This entire approach of the appellant is not at all acceptable to us. The appellant has honored the forged cheque. This amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of appellant.
The Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank V/s. Canara Sales Corporation and Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1603, has taken a view that âwhenever the cheque purporting to be by a customer is presented before the bank, it carries a mandate to the Bank to pay and if cheque is forged there is no mandate. The Bank can escape liability only if it can establish the knowledge to the customer of the forgery in thee cheques. Inaction for a continuously long period cannot by itself afford satisfactory grounds for the Bank to escape the liabilityâ. The facts of the above case are squarely applicable to the case in hand. However, the Forum below has awarded Rs.1lakh together with interest @ 15% p.a. from 01/06/1991 till realisation, which is on higher side. We therefore, inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 15% p.a. to 9% p.a. In the result, we pass following order:-
Order:
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. In operative clause of the impugned order rate of interest @15% p.a. to be read as 9% p.a.
3. Rest of the order stands confirmed.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.