Compendsation for encashment of cheque stolen from dropbox of Bank

By | October 27, 2015

 Where a cheque was deposited in drop box of Kotak Mahindra Bank and it was stolen and fraudulently encashed by someone through a fictitious account opened in Bank of Baroda. In such a case both Banks were liable for deficiency of services and were directed to pay Rs. 1 lakhs each as compensation to the payee.

Facts:

 (a) P.R. Menon had an account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. He deposited cheque of Rs.8 lakhs in the bank’s dropbox. His cheque was stolen by someone and encashed through a fictitious account in Bank of Baroda.

 (b) Aggrieved-payee approached the banking ombdusman and he also complained to the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission.

 (c) Ombdusman directed Bank of Baroda to compensate Menon’s loss of Rs. 8 lakh. Bank of Baroda filed a civil suit against Kotak Mahindra Bank to recover such amount. Mr. Menon deprived of a sum of Rs. 8 lakh for almost 20 months.

 (d) The State Commission held Kotak Mahindra Bank guilty of negligence, as the cheque was stolen from its dropbox. It also held Bank of Baroda guilty of negligence for allowing a fictitious account to be opened without following KYC norms. Both banks were guilty of deficiency in services and they should compensate Menon for his loss.

 (e) Accordingly, while allowing complaint, the State Commission also granted compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be payable by banks for mental agony caused to payee. However, Banks challenged this order in two separate appeals.

The National Commission held as under:

 (1) The commission observed that Mr. Menon was deprived of Rs.8 lakh for nearly 20 months. So a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be equally payable by both banks could not be considered unreasonable or excessive.

 (2) Both the appeals were dismissed and banks were directed to pay additional costs of Rs.10,000 to Mr. Menon.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1162 OF 2014

(Against the Order dated 27/02/2014 in Complaint No. 16/2009 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. BANK OF BARODA THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER,

REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 90, C.P. RAMASAMY ROAD,

ALWARPET, CHENNAI-600018 TAMIL NADU ………..Appellant(s)

Versus

1. P.R. DOVINDRAN KUTTY MENON & ANR. S/O. RAMAN MENON, NO. POONGA STREET,

POOMPOZHIL NAGAR, CHENNAI-6000062 TAMIL NADU

2. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ING VYSYA BANK LTD.) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, Z-192, 2ND FLOOR, AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600040 TAMIL NADU

3. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ING VYSYA BANK LTD.) THROUGH ITS AREA OPERATIONS SERVICES HEAD, MR. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD R., REGIONAL OFFICE AT 14TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 5, DLF CYBER TERRACES, DLF CYBER CITY, GURGAON – 122 002 HARYANA ………..Respondent(s)

Dated : 15 Oct 2015

Judgement

Leave a Reply