(Consultant Pic)  |  Photo Credit score: iStock Photographs
- The account holder had issued an account-payee cheque of Rs 135.
- The account holder filed a police criticism, however the case was closed.
- The Shopper Safety Act is the final word treatment on this case, stated the buyer court docket.
Ahmedabad: A financial institution account holder in Ahmedabad issued an account-payee cheque of Rs 135, however little did he know that Rs 4.8 lakh can be withdrawn from his account with that cheque. Following this, when the account holder checked his transactions, he discovered that the quantity has been withdrawn from his financial savings checking account with ICICI Financial institution, though he had not issued the cheque.
Consequently, he filed a criticism after which the buyer court docket ordered ICICI Financial institution Ltd to refund the quantity. Nonetheless, the financial institution asserted that the fraud was dedicated by a 3rd get together and the financial institution was not liable to compensate for it.
The account holder, recognized as Uday Pandya, is a resident of Shahibaug in Ahmedabad. In line with a report within the Instances of India, Pandya needed to go to Canada for which he had issued an account-payee cheque of Rs 135 within the identify of VFS Canada in April 2008. Then, he had Rs 5.08 lakh in his financial savings account with ICICI Financial institution, however later he discovered that as an alternative of Rs 135, Rs 4.8 lakh was withdrawn from his checking account.
Consequently, when Pandya inquired in regards to the withdrawal, the financial institution confirmed him a bearer cheque of Rs 4.8 lakh which was issued by Pandya himself to be paid to ‘self’. Upon listening to this, Pandya argued that he had not issued the bearer cheque and accused the financial institution for not verifying the authenticity of the cheque, reported The Instances of India.
Following this, he filed a police criticism, however to no avail. In line with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, it revealed that the cheque was ‘rewritten’. Having this affirmation that the cheque was tampered with, Pandya insisted on a refund. He supported his declare by stating that the financial institution issued such an enormous quantity with out having checked the veracity of the cheque.
Subsequently, Pandya filed a case with the Gujarat State Shopper Dispute Redressal Fee. “In case of a cheque price over Rs 50,000, the cheque have to be examined beneath an ultraviolet ray machine earlier than clearing it for fee,” argued Pandya’s lawyer including that the financial institution officers turned a blind eye to the principles laid down by the Reserve Financial institution of India and have been negligent whereas clearing the cheque.
In reply to this, the financial institution defended itself by saying that the fraud was dedicated by a 3rd get together so it was not the financial institution’s accountability to cowl up for the loss. The financial institution additional argued that an SMS alert was despatched to the account holder for verification.
After listening to the arguments of each events, the judicial member of the fee, M J Mehta, got here to the conclusion that it was the responsibility of the financial institution to stick to all the principles and laws established by the RBI and confirm the cheque accordingly. “The financial institution didn’t comply with the principles adopted by itself. It lacked in performing its responsibility and was poor in service,” famous the buyer court docket. Lastly, the fee said that the one redressal, on this case, is the Shopper Safety Act.