The appellant herein is the plaintiff. The suit filed for recovery of money with interest.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she opened a Saving Bank Account with the defendant Bank in the year 1983 under Account No.5623/14. Every month, she used to deposit her rental income Rs.750 to Rs.800/- in the said account. On 01.07.1985, she withdrew a sum of Rs.1500/- under a cheque bearing No.332771 and on 03.11.1986, she withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- under a cheque bearing No.332772. Except these two withdrawals, she has not withdrawn any money during that period. Her balance as on May 1987 ought to have been a sum of Rs.52,900.55. But, to her shock and surprise, when she verified with the bank, she found that she had only balance of Rs.127.55 and one Mr. Thomas, who is her messenger and relative used to transact with the Bank on her behalf, has forged her signatures in the cheque slips and withdrawn a total sum of Rs.52,900.55, without her knowledge.

3. The Bank Officials, who should have shown proper care, while passing cheques containing forged signatures, has failed to do so, resulting in withdrawal of Rs.52,900.55 by the said Thomas fraudulently. The defendant Bank Officials had passed the cheques without due care and by gross negligence, which amounts to dereliction of duty and misconduct in the course of employment. Had due diligence shown by the Bank Officials by proper comparison of the specimen signatures of the plaintiff kept in the custody of the Bank with, the cheques presented by the said Thomas ought not have passed the forged cheques.

4. Based on her complaint to the Mylapore Police Station against the said Thomas, the Police has registered a case and the Trial ended in conviction for two years of Rigorous Imprisonment. Since the defendant Bank has negligently passed the cheques containing four signatures, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.52,900.55 with interest at the rate of 18%.

5. The defendant resisted the suit claim on the ground that the plaintiff introduced one Thomas as a close relative of her husband and informed the Bank that he will be helping her in interacting with the Bank. The said Thomas was operating the account on her behalf by depositing the money and collecting cash through bearer cheques. The cheques were honoured only, after due verification with the signatures and there was no variations to entertain any suspicion over those cheques. Further, the said Thomas himself was an account holder and he was introduced by the plaintiff for opening the account. The plaintiff ought to have verified her account periodically and also ought to have kept the cheque book as well as pass book in her safe custody so as to prevent any misuse by others. Having allowed the said Thomas to handle her cheque book and pass book, the plaintiff cannot blame the Bank Officials for honouring the bearer cheques bearing signatures of the plaintiff and presented by the said Thomas. Since there is no negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed?

2. What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. In support of her case, the plaintiff was examined herself as PW1 and marked 10 exhibits. On behalf of the defendant, 8 witnesses were examined and 70 documents were marked.

8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence let in by the parties, has allowed the suit holding that the negligence on the part of the defendant for not periodically verifying the account cannot be a reason to justify the defendant's Bank honouring forged cheques.

9. On appeal by the defendant's Bank, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciating the evidence, has held that the plaintiff has not proved her case of negligence on the part of the defendant's Bank and when there is no evidence to prove the signatures found in the cheques honoured by the Bank are forged signatures, no liability can be mulcte