Banks are liable for losses incurred due to payments made on forged cheques, failing to exercise due diligence constitutes deficiency in service.

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The brief facts as stated in complaint are that complainant has a saving bank count number 0390101082503 with OP1 at their local branch i.e. OP2.

It is alleged that complainant was approached by a person namely Mr. Arvind Kumar on 15.06.2010 through telephonic conversation who purported himself to be team leader with city bank and offered personal loan to complainant. On 16.6.2010 the said Mr. Arvind Kumar sent his executive Mr. Naveen Sharma to the office of the complainant to collect the documents required for processing the personal loan. The complainant provided him the following documents: -

a) A copy of Pan Card

b) A copy of Voter Identity Card

c) A copy of the Passport

d) Salary slips for the month of March, April, May 2010

e) Photocopy of the Bank Passbook (A/c No. 0390101082503) Canara Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi

f) Income Tax Returns for the year 2009-10 & 2008-09

g) Photocopy of form 16 for the year 2009-2010.

h) 2 Passport size photographs (one self attested on the front)

i) 3 Cheques of Canara Bank (A/c No. 82503)

i). Cheque No. 755121-in favour of Citibank, signed & cancelled.

ii). Cheque No. 755122- Company Blank and Unsigned.

iii). Cheque No. 755123- completely Blank and Unsigned.

The said executive reassured the complainant that a loan would be sanctioned. On 18.6.2010, the complainant to his shock found out that Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 48,000/- has been withdrawn from his account vide check No. 755123 and 755122 respectively. On further inquiries, the complainant found that Rs. 90,000/- was withdrawn on cheque no. 755123 on 17.6.2010 at 13:19 hours by someone who had signed as Tarun Gupta on the back of cheque without submitting his ID proof and Rs. 48,000/- was withdrawn on cheque no. 755122 by someone who has signed as Sumit Jain on the back of the cheque without submitting his ID proof. Immediately, the complainant gave an application to OP2 for stopping payment of other cheque.

The complainant lodged a police complaint on 23.6.2010. After inquiry, it was found that the mobile numbers provided by presenters of cheques i.e. Tarun Gupta and Sumit Jain were obtained by submitting false numbers.

The complainant sent a notice to OP1 about this fraud on 15.9.2010. The senior manager of OP2 reverted by e-mail dated 16.9.2010 stating that the matter is engaging their attention stating that the cheques were honoured as per the apparent tenor. On 21.9.2010, OP1 sent a letter dated 15.9.2010 informing the complainant that the matter had been taken up.

The complainant submits that the bank is supposed to keep people's money safe and secure. It is alleged that the OP Bank should have installed CCTV as it deals with public money, saving deposits and other valuables. It is further alleged that the banker should have verified the signature at the time of encashment of the cheques while giving the money to unknown persons. The bankers should have retained a photocopy of the person who came to collect the cash. The complainant alleges that the bank had a duty to meticulously cross check the signatures and bank officials were responsible for clearing the forged cheques. The complainant prays for refund of Rs. 1,38,000/- with interest @12% p.a., a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for negligence and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards legal expense.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 01.03.2023, whereby it held as under:

“OP in its reply has stated that the loss has been caused to complainant because blank cheques were handed over by the complainant to unknown persons. After receivi