R. UDAYASANKER
S/o Ramchandiran, Tinkering Work at C-87
Annamalai Nagar
Pondicherry                                                          ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                     Versus    
CHIEF MANAGER-CUM-DEPUTY MANGER,
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
Manager,
Central Bank of India (Pondicherry Branch)
Pondicherry                                                          ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
     HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER

Dated : 05 Apr 2018


PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 28.04.2011, passed by the Puducherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 13/2007, “Central Bank of India versus R. Udayasanker”, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 08.06.2007, passed by the District Forum Puducherry in consumer complaint No. 81/2005, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.
 
2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant R. Udayasanker had been holding a savings bank account No. 12755 with the opposite party (OP)/respondent, Central Bank of India, for the past 9 years, at the time of making the consumer complaint in question in the year 2005.  As stated in the complaint, the complainant had a balance of ₹71,626.50ps. in the said account as in February 2005.  According to the complainant, he did not operate the said account by way of deposit or withdrawal of any money from February 2005 to September 2005.  However, on 19.09.2005, when he wanted to withdraw some money out of that account, he found that he had misplaced the bank passbook for that account.  When he approached the Bank for the withdrawal of the money, he was told that a sum of ₹1,048.50ps. only. was the outstanding balance in his account, although the complainant expected a balance of ₹71,626.50ps. in his account.  The complainant was told that a sum of ₹56,000/- was withdrawn from his account on 23.03.2005 and a further sum of ₹15,000/- was withdrawn from the same account on 31.03.2005 by using two challans.  Alleging that the challans dated 23.03.2005 and 31.03.2005 were presented to the Bank officials by some unauthorised persons, the complainant lodged a complaint on 21.09.2005 with the OP Bank, asking them to take necessary action for the illegal withdrawal from his account by means of those two challans.  Later on, he issued a legal notice also to the Bank seeking payment of the money so withdrawn from his account along with a compensation of ₹50,000/-.  The consumer complaint in question was then filed, seeking directions to the OP Bank to pay him a sum of ₹71,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation and also for payment of cost of ₹5,000/- to the complainant.
 
3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP Bank by filing their written reply before the District Forum, in which they admitted that the complainant had his savings bank account No. 12755 with them and there was a credit of ₹71,624.50ps. in that account as on 31.01.2005.  The OP Bank maintained that the complainant had himself withdrawn sum of ₹56,000/- on 23.03.2005 and ₹15,000/- on 31.03.2005 through withdrawal slips by producing the savings bank account passbook.  The said withdrawals were permitted after verifying his signatures with those of his specimen signatures maintained in the Bank.  The Bank denied that there was any negligence on their part and requested that the complaint be dismissed.
 
4.       During proceedings in the consumer complaint before the District Forum, it was decided to obtain the report of hand-writing expert, based on the request made by the complainant.  The said expert examined the signatures of the complainant made in the ordinary course of business with the signatures made on the withdrawal slips and reported that the said signatures were different.  The District Forum, after considering the averments made before them, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Bank to pay a sum of ₹71,000/- to the complainant, along with a compensation of ₹50,000/- for deficiency in service and ₹5,000/- as cost of litigation.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission.  Vide impugned order, the said appeal was allowed and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.  The State Commission expressed the opinion that the report of the hand-writing expert of Forensic Sciences Department could not be considered as a fool-proof document.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
 
5.       During hearing, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding given in the impugned order by the State Commission, by which they refused to rely upon the report of the hand-writing expert was erroneous.  However, the State Commission had rightly placed reliance on the said report and allowed the consumer complaint in question.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to a copy of the report of the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai placed on record and the examination-in-chief of Mr. M.T. Yuvanesan, Scientific Assistant, Gr. I of that Department and stated that it was clear from this report that some other person had withdrawn the money from the Bank.  In their written arguments as well, the complainant stated that according to the report of the hand-writing expert, the signatures on the withdrawal slips were totally different from his standard signatures.
 
6.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the OP Bank stated that the order passed by the State Commission represented a true appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record.  In fact, the amount in question had been withdrawn from the Bank by the complainant himself by using his own pass-book.  In their written arguments, it is stated that the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Police on 21.09.2005 about the alleged unauthorised withdrawal, but the Police did not find any substance in his complaint.  The complainant had been maintaining his account with the Bank for the past 9 years and had been depositing/withdrawing money from his account on a number of occasions.  The OP Bank has further stated that on visual comparison by their officers, the signatures on the withdrawal slips were found to be similar to the specimen signatures with the Bank and hence, the withdrawals were permitted.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       The main issue for consideration in the present case is whether withdrawal of the amounts of ₹56,000/- and ₹15,000/- from the account of the complainant was made by some unauthorised person or by the complainant himself.  The Bank has maintained that they had duly compared the signatures on the withdrawal slips with the specimen signatures maintained with them and found them to be similar.  There was, therefore, no fault of the Bank in the whole transaction.  In this regard, the report made by the hand-writing expert, which is signed by two officers of Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai is a crucial document.  The report is signed by Mr. A.S. Ramu, Assistant Director and document expert of Forensic Sciences Department, and by Mr. M.T. Yuvanesan, Scientific Assistant Gr.I and document expert.  Both these officers are equipped with Postgraduate degrees as evidenced from the report.  It has been stated in the report, inter alia, as follows:-

“The standard signatures have been freely written and they agree in the handwriting characteristics on intense comparison.  The questioned signatures have been partially imitated and they differ significantly from the standard in the handwriting characteristics.  The characteristic differences include among other things the following.
………………………………………………..”
 
9.       Further, the District Forum recorded statement of Mr. M.T. Yuvanesan, Scientific Assistant, Gr. I as well.  The cross-examination of the said expert was also made by the counsel for the OP Bank, during proceedings before the District Forum.  It is made clear that the standard signatures of the complainant “A1 to A5” were compared with the 4 signatures on the 2 withdrawal slips “Q1 to Q4”.  It has been clearly stated by the document expert in his statement before the District Forum that the person, who wrote the signatures A1 to A5 did not write the signatures on the withdrawal slips, i.e., Q1 to Q4.  It has also been stated that the questioned signatures differ significantly from the standard signatures of the complainant.
 
10.     It is made out from the report of hand-writing expert that the version given by the complainant that he did not withdraw money from his account on both occasions in March 2005, is correct.  It may be true that the officers of the Bank may have duly compared the signatures on the withdrawal slips with the specimen signatures in the account of the complainant, but keeping in view the report of the hand-writing expert, it becomes clear that the money was withdrawn by someone else, impersonating for the complainant.  In the given scenario, therefore, the view taken by the District Forum that the complainant needs to be given compensation seems to be correct.  It has been provided in the Preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well that the objective of enacting the said legislation is to ensure better protection of the interests of the consumers.  Once it is proved from the report of expert that the complainant did not withdraw the money himself, he deserves to be given the compensation, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
 
11.       Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside, whereas the order passed by the District Forum stands restored.  It shall be the duty of the Bank to make payment to the complainant as directed by the District Forum within four weeks of the passing of this order.  There shall be no order as to costs.