IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18043 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.MENON, 'PRAYAG', S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.JOSEMON SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PEEDIKAYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, MARINE DRIVE, K.T.D.C.BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-11. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, E.M.S.COMPOUND, NEAR MUSEUM, TRIVANDRUM-695 033. 3. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, C/O.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM-695 033. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18043 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has a savings bank account with the 1st respondent bank in its 2nd respondent branch. Allegedly his driver withdrew Rs.88,000/- using two cheque leaves from the account of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, those cheque were not singed by the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the withdrawal of the amounts, he filed a complaint to the bank manager for appropriate action. A police complaint was also given. Police have registered a case. The accused was arrested and charges were framed against him. The criminal case is pending. The petitioner now wants a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner the said amount with interest. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman also. So far no order has been passed by the Ombudsman. That is why, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P6 order of the bank, denying its liability for payment and to wait till conviction of the accused. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order, directing the bank to make payment of Rs.88,000/- with interests and cost for police complaint and the loss sustained amounting to Rs.10000/-. (c) Direct the Banking Ombudsman to issue direction on Exhibit P7 to the bank to pay the amount of Rs. 88,000/- with interest and damages of Rs. 10,000/-” w.p.c.18043/06 2 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Bank also, who has filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the bank is not at fault at all. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The question as to whether the cheques were singed by the petitioner or by somebodyelse is a matter for evidence. Of course, if the criminal case had ended in a conclusion as to who signed the cheque, this Court may have been able to consider the claim of the petitioner. But as on today, it cannot be conclusively held either way without taking evidence. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioner should approach a forum where the petitioner can adduce evidence in support of the contentions of the petitioner. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge