ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission who set aside the orders of the District Forum allowing the complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary to appreciate the case are that in both the cases before us the complainants had an account with the respondent Bank. In both cases as per complainants some other people requisitioned new cheque books and obtained them from the respondent, some cheque(s) from these books were used to draw large amounts from the complainant’s account. Upon coming to know of negligible balance on presentation of cheques by the complainants they came to know of the fact of withdrawal(s) based on cheque books which they never obtained nor did they sign the cheques withdrawing the amounts. When they complained the matter to the respondent Bank and upon not getting any proper response/relief two separate complaints were filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties allowed the complaints and directed the respondent Bank to pay back fraudulently withdrawn amounts with interest. On an appeal filed by the respondent Bank, the State Commission allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
3. The point at issue is, if there has been any deficiency on the part of the Bank on the facts and circumstances of the case ?
As we see there are two parts of the complaint–Issue of cheque books on a written request by an imposter and encashing the cheques of different amount(s) signed by an imposter again. Even if we do not dispute the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that they performed their duties in good faith when they issued the cheque books and encashed the cheques, yet in our view the insurmountable problem for the respondent is to explain the conduct of the Bank with reference to signatures on the documents. Good faith shall be at par with an apology for non-performance. They cannot run away from the responsibility they carry, in comparing the signatures. Issue of cheque book is not issue of blank stationery. At the time of issue as per good banking practice, Bank compares the signatures of the account holder before issue of an instrument or encashing the cheques. This cannot be denied. Unfortunately, the State Commission did not go into this question. Before us also attempt was made to get away by not showing us the specimen signatures of the petitioners, on the records of the Bank. What we finally did get to see only was the account opening form. As it is, this has the signatures of both the account holders, one as an introducer and the other as of that for of the person opening the account. Where the State Commission appears to have gone wrong is to compare was the signatures on the cheque book requisitioning application and the signatures on the cheques, both of which, as per allegation of the complainant carried the signatures of the same person i.e. the imposter. No effort appears to have been made by the State Commission to obtain the original record or any other document showing the specimen signatures of the petitioner(s) and compare them with the material before them. When we see the signatures on the Account Opening Form of both the complainants and compare them with the signatures on the cheque requisition application and the cheques, then without aid from any handwriting expert it becomes clear that the respondent failed not once but twice to correctly verify/compare the signatures on these instruments and the specimen signatures with them on record–one at the time of issue of cheque book and again at the time of encashing cheques. This appears to be a case of double default on the part of the respondent. Bank’s cashiers are professional and trained to read the difference between the signatures. It is here that they appear to have failed. Deficiency in rendering service is writ large on the face of it by the respondent by not comparing the signatures on the documents/instruments presented to them with record of signatures kept by them.
4. In the light of above discussion we are unable to sustain the orders passed by the State Commission in the two appeals filed before it, hence, set aside. The orders of the District Forum are restored. The revision petitions are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.