IMPORTANT POINT
It is bounden duty of bank to check and compare signatures with specimen signatures affixed on account opening form.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member —The complainant, Basant Parvati C.H.S. Ltd. has alleged that the State Bank of India cleared its forged cheque in the sum of Rs.70,000/- on 15.9.2004. Thereafter, the watchman reported the matter after a lapse of about three months that the above said cheque has been forged. The relevant letter dated 16.12.2004 runs as follows:

“To,

The Senior Inspector,

Worli Police Station,

Worli, Mumbai 400 025

Dear Sir,

Yesterday about 1.30 pm the Society watchman Rohidas Patil informed me that a cheque of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand Only) dated 15.9.2004 of State Bank of India, Worli Sea Face Branch, has been encahsed by one Dilip Sonekar under forged signatures. I immediately went to the Bank and met the lady Manager there and asked her to show the instrument which has been encashed. The cheque was shown to me. The manager then told me that my signature are forged on the cheque but other signature of the treasurer appear to be genuine. I pointed out to her that other signature also appear to be forged. Thereafter, Society’s watchman Rohidas Patil and Banker’s Iqbal went to the house of Deepak Waiker another watch man of Society residing at Worli Koliwada.

I again contacted the lady Manager on Phone in the evening who asked me to wait till today when the watchman Deepak is expected to come.

Today at about 12.30 PM Deepak who is on leave came to my residence with his wife and another man and told me that he has not done any thing.

I have talked to the Mrs. Prem Adukia treasurer of the society and her husband Mr. Surendra Adukia who informed me that she has not signed the cheque.

Please investigate & do the needful in the matter.”

2. The complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

“In view of the above discussion, there is no hesitation in our minds that the Opponent. Bank is clearly deficient in their services as well as guilty of unfair trade practice for allowing encashment of a bearer cheque without verifying the signatures on the said cheque with the specimen signatures. We therefore, feel that not only the opponent bank but all other banks should follow the procedure laid down by the RBI etc. and refrain from such practices which are to the serious prejudice of its customers. We are further of the view that the complainant Society was so much so constrained that the redressal of its grievances it had to knock the doors of this Forum and therefore, needs to be compensated for the same. Hence the following order:

ORDER

The complaint No. 33/2007 is allowed in the following terms which are as follows:

1. Opponent is directed to reimburse the complainant Society to the tune of Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest @9% w.e.f. 15.4.2009 till realization.

2. Opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Society Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

3. Opponent is directed to comply the order within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, in default 18% interest would be applicable.”

3. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed by the State Bank of India before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and came to the following conclusion:

“4. An expert opinion of handwriting expert-cum-document examiner was sought in the instant case from Mr. Haresh T. Gajjar. Said opinion is referred by both the parties. The relevant part of it reads as under:

VII. Further I have observed that the disputed signature marked (Y-1) on the document marked X/1 without the aid of various optical instruments, under different illuminating sources and without the aid of photo enlargements of the disputed as well as Standard Signatures can be passed erroneously as genuine one in Rapid, Routine, Limited Cursory Examination, usually followed by the passing officer of various banks in India.

(5) Thus, it is revealed from the hand writing expert’s opinion that forgery could not be detected in no