First Appeal No. A/126/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/01/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/267/2014 of District Howrah). Case: Pawan Sharma Vs The Branch Manager, UCO Bank and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. A/126/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/01/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/267/2014 of District Howrah) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Advocate and For Respondents: Dipak Adak, Advocate |
| Judges | Shyamal Gupta, (Presiding Member) and Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 85(2) |
| Judgement Date | April 05, 2017 |
| Court | West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Shyamal Gupta, (Presiding Member), (Kolkata)
-
The present Appeal arises out of the Order dated 15-01-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah, in C.C. No. 267/2014, whereby the complaint case has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Complainant thereof has filed this Appeal.
-
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that, one Mr. Smrat, posing as agent of TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. promised to arrange for a personal loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- that he was looking for in order to solemnize his daughter. As per the advice of said Mr. Smrat, he handed him over requisite documents and four cheque folios bearing Nos. 268487 - 490 and marked Cheque Nos. 268487 and 268488 as cancelled, but inadvertently he signed those cheques. Subsequently, he came to know that a sum of Rs. 70,500/- was debited from his savings account using cheque Nos. 268487 and 268488. As soon as he got wind of such fraudulent withdrawals from his account, he lodged an FIR with the concerned Police Station and also brought the matter to the notice of the OP Bank. It is further stated that payee's names written on the cheques-in-dispute were altered and also attempt was made to veil the same tactfully. Besides, from the reverse of those cheques it would appear that signature of the Complainant was forged. Wondering how such disparity in respect of his cheques escaped the attention of the concerned officials of the OP bank and terming such lapses as gross deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the instant complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.
-
Appearing to defend their case, OP Nos. 1 to 3 stated in their W.V. that in according with Sec. 85(2) of the N.I. Act, 1881, the instrument in which the word 'bearer' remains, the same instrument is always treated as a 'bearer' instrument irrespective of some persons' name written in the cheque as the 'payee'. In other words, in case of bearer cheques if the payee's name is written as A, the payment can be made to B, C or D unless the word 'bearer' is struck off from the cheque. In this case, as the word 'bearer' was not struck off, payment in the eye of law could be made to any Tom, Dick and Harry. The further case of the OPs is that, it was found that the Complainant/account holder duly put his signature in the designated space of the cheques. By his action the Complainant abated the commission of fraud if at all there was any fraud in this regard. As the Complainant did...
To continue reading
Request your trial