Negligence in opening a savings account and allowing a withdrawal without proper verification can lead to the loss falling under the exception clause of an insurance policy.

ORDER

S.G. Deshmukh, Presiding Judicial Member (Oral)- The present appeal is filed by original respondent against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2005 in complaint case No. 144/02 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalna.

2. Respondent/Org. complainant's case before the Forum is that, respondent/org. complainant is a co-operative bank. It is contended that appellant is Insurance Company who is providing services to the bankers. It is contended that complainant bank had obtained bankers indemnity insurance policy for the period 12.3.2000 to 2.3.2001 from appellant. It is contended that on 29.5.2000 one Shri Rajesh Shah along with his brother Shri. Hasmukh Shah had come to the complainant bank and they introduced themselves as businessmen and with proper introduction they opened savings account No. 262 in the respondent bank. It is contended that on 30.5.2000 Rajesh Shah brought Demand Draft drawn on Bank of India, Mumbai Central Branch amounting to Rs.6,75,580 and deposited demand draft in his account bearing No. 262 on 30.5.2000. It is contended that on Rajesh Shah obtained cash amount of Rs. 4,00,000 and asked for cheque of Rs. 1,61,091. It is contended that complainant's officer verified the said Demand Draft of Rs. 6,75,580 dated 29.5.2000. They found draft is genuine and original. In due process of law and as per banking practice amount of Rs. 4,00,000 and cheque of Rs. 1,61,091 were given to Rajesh, Shah. It is contended that on 31.5.2000 complainant bank presented said D.D. in State Bank of India, Jalna for clearance through State Bank of Hyderabad, main branch Jalna. It transpired that said D.D. was stolen from Bank of India, Mumbai branch. On receipt of information complainant lodged complaint in the Police Station, Sadar Bazar against Rajesh Shah and his brother Hasmukh Ramlal Shah in respect of fraudulent act by way of misrepresenting the stolen D.D. It is contended that Rajesh Shah and his brother Hasmukh Shah in collusion with each other have withdrawn the amount of Rs. 4 lakh for their own benefit and committed an offence under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that Sadar Bazar Police Station registered an offence against them at Crime No. 145/2000. It is contended that on 31.5.2000 Bank of India, Branch Jalna, its Branch Manager has intimated the Police of Sadar Bazar, Jalna that the D.D. has been stolen from Bank of India, Mumbai in the month of April 2000 and the said intimation has been given to Officer of Bank of India on 14.2.2000. It is contended that none of the complainant's bank employee or officer is involved in the case. None of them is benefited in the case. It is contended that complainant bank opened savings account in the name of Rajesh Shah by confirming the person who was having savings account in the Jalna Merchant Co-operative Bank, Jalna. Therefore, account of said Rajesh Shah was properly introduced and identified by local person in due process of law and as per banking norms. Even though before opening saving account with the complainant bank, complainant bank had confirmed by obtaining the copy of account opening form from Jalna Merchant Co-operative Bank, Jalna. Subsequently, payment of local cheque/draft can be done without clearance by discounting such instrument as per banking norms and practice and, therefore, no question of breach of any norms or practice on behalf of complainant Bank has been arisen. There is no negligence on behalf of employee or officers of complainant Bank in the subject matter. The act was an accidental and bona fide. There was no any fraudulent intention or mala fide intention of the complainant at the time of disbursement of Rs. 4 lakh by way of part consideration amount of D.D. Thus it is contended that appellant Insurance Company is liable for payment of said amount of Rs. 4 lakh under the Bankers Indemnity Insurance Policy. It is contended that on 1st June, 2000 complainant Bank submitted the request letter to app