Back
TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
V.V. Seshubabu, Member (M-J) and
R.S. Rajeshree, Member (N-J)
Branch Manager, State Bank of India – Appellant
versus
Saynam Srinivasulu – Respondent
FA.No.459 of 2019
Decided on 30.8.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:M/s. Vamaraju Sri Krishnudu, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Harish Kumar & Associates
IMPORTANT POINT
Only hand writing expert can find difference of signatures on disputed/questioned documents by comparing with admitted documents.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47] – Banking – Term Deposit – Deficiency in service – Transfer of maturity amount to another unknown account – District Forum directed to refund term deposit of Rs.5,50,000/- with 9% interest, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- towards costs – Only hand writing expert can found difference of signatures on disputed/questioned documents by comparing with admitted documents – This commission is not competent to decide alleged fraud said to have been made by opposite party – Competent civil or criminal courts can only entertain such ordeal of deciding disputed signatures and also allegation of fraud, more so, when opposite party is repeatedly contending that it acted bonafidely in attending instructions of PW1 – Appellant permitted to withdraw amounts deposited by it while preferring appeal after expiry of appeal time. (Paras 12 and 14)
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
V.V. Seshubabu, Member-Judicial—This appeal is filed U/s 15 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by the order dt. 13.05.2019 in CC. No. 32/2017 directing the opposite party to refund term deposit of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest @9% p.a., from 05.05.2015 till realization; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- towards costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The brief case of the complaint in CC. No. 32/2017 are that the complainant is working as QC/QA Manager, in Phamatex Industries Ltd., at Lagos, Nigeria and having NRE account bearing No.620485523004 with opposite party and deposited Rs.6 lakhs into the same; that obtained term deposit vide account number 62374787465 in the month of October, 2014 with the month of maturity in October, 2015; that on 09.05.2015 having verified with account by online found that his term deposit was divided and Rs.5,50,000/- out of the same was transferred to another unknown account and was having balance of Rs.50,000/- only and it was done without his knowledge and request; that the same was intimated through emails but was not properly responded by the opposite party and finally after one month it was responded by producing all fake emails and scanned copies, as if they were sent by the complainant; that the alleged documents are not matching with the beneficiary names and account numbers; that the discrepancies were taken to the notice of the opposite parties on 16.06.2015 by email with a request to restore amounts, but not done till date; that complainant approached banking ombudsmen, but it was closed, on the ground that it involved verification of signatures by the experts; that the opposite party even not informed the facts to the police for investigation; that the complainant gave a report before cybercrime police on 28.12.2015 which was registered as an FIR No. 364/2015; that being NRI the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and loss of huge money due to the negligent acts of the opposite party; that a legal notice was issued on 25.08.2016 for which a reply notice dt.09.09.2016 was given with false averments; that the actions of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service; hence, the complaint.
3. The brief averments of the written version of opposite party is that the complainant is having NRE account since 26.11.2019; that as per the request, the term deposit was taken on 14.10.2014 for Rs.6 lakhs for one year; that on 05.05.2015 the complainant sent an email at 11:47 AM, through his registered email ID with a scanned letter under his signature with a request to transfer Rs.5,50,000/- to the beneficiary by name Mr. Rajveer having bank account with SBI bearing No. 20248204403, Nirankari Colony, New Delhi and to keep the balance of Rs.50,000/- in his SBI account; that the request was bonafidely and in good faith attended by the opposite party after verifying the signature of complainant on the scanned document with the specimen signatures and sent a confirmation mail to the complainant; that on 09.05.2015 complainant sent another mail denying the request that was made on 05.05.2015; that on 11.05.2015 complainant sent another email through the registered ID to transfer balance of Rs.50,000/- lying in his account to Mr. Rajveer, the previous beneficiary by duly enclosing scanned letter; that this time the opposite party contacted SBI Branch at Nirankari Colony with a request to put hold the account of Mr. Rajveer and freeze the account; that after obtaining the statement of account of Mr. Rajveer, it was noticed that from 01.01.2015 onwards large number of transactions were made in his account from various places in India; that the banking ombudsmen closed the complaint of the complainant as the relief asked was beyond his scope; that the opposite party responded to the letters served on it by the cybercrime police and even gave a reply dt. 09.09.2016 to the notice of the complainant; that previously also
