R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2011 State Bank of Patiala and others ......Appellants Versus Jarman Devi .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Anand, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vikas Mor, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned District Judge, in para Nos. 2 to 6 of the impugned judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 2 “2. It is the case of respondent/ plaintiff Jarman Devi that she has an account with the State Bank of Patiala, Gohana bearing No.0119021320. A sum of ` 1,05,000/- only was unauthorisedly withdrawn from her account by someone in collusion with the appellants/defendants No.1 to 4 between January 8 and March 24, 2003. She is an illiterate lady who can barely affix her signatures. The bank authorities had issued a passbook to her with her photograph pasted on it. The amount was allowed to be withdrawn by the bank men against the rules which clearly say that any sum more than ` 7,000/- only cannot be withdrawn without the passbook. 3. It has been further urged that neither the plaintiff nor her authorized agent had visited the bank alongwith the passbook on the four occasions on which the amount was withdrawn from the bank. She visited the bank along with her daughter namely manju on February 17,2003 to withdraw some money but she was surprised to know that a sum of ` 35,000/- only had been debited from her account with her knowledge. She was told by the bank authorities that a sum of ` 15,000/- only was withdrawn on that very day. She told the bank authorities that she had not visited the bank on those dates and she had not withdrawn the money R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 3 from the bank. The authorities assured her to act in the matter. She was told by the former colleagues of her late husband, who was serving the animal husbandry department of the State, that the Government had sanctioned some more amount on account of the death of her husband which she was required to receive. She visited the bank on March 25, 2003 for entry of the newly received amount in the passbook but she was told by some official of the bank that a sum of ` 50,000/- only was withdrawn from her account on the previous day of March 24. He also told her that a sum ` 20,000/- only was withdrawn from her account on 6.5.2003 and as such a sum of ` 1,05,000/- only had been withdrawn from her account. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff that a sum of ` 1,05,000/- only was withdrawn from her account by the bank employees by playhing fraud upon her and the banking system. She lodged a report in writing with the bank authorities and demanded her amount with interest. Since the appellant/defendants did not acknowledge the claim of plaintiff Jarman Devi, she was constrained to file this case. 5. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants/ defendants that plaintiff Jarman Devi indeed has an R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 4 account with the bank and she has mentioned the correct account number in para No.1 of the plaint. The withdrawal of amount on January 8, January 20, March 6, and March 24, 2003 from the account of Smt.Jarman Devi is a matter of record. The bank authorities are not aware of the fact that Jarman Devi is an illiterate housewife. The bank had indeed issued a passbook in her name. However, it has been denied that the plaintiff did not receive the money withdrawn from her account on those five occasions. It has been admitted by the appellants/ defendants that instructions have indeed been issued to all the account holders to carry the passbooks with them at the time of withdrawal of money. In case an account holder fails to bring the passbook with him, he may still withdraw the amount provided his signatures tally with the specimen signatures available with the bank and he is identified from the photograph available there. He is also required to be identified by some official of the bank. The amount can be withdrawn in such eventuality as a special case with the permission of the branch manager. 6. It has been further urged that Jarman Devi had alleged before the bank authorities that he nephew had forged R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 5 her signatures and had fraudulently withdrawn the amount. The entries in respect of the withdrawal of money are always made in the passbook. They had got the disputed signatures on the five vouchers examined by a handwriting expert, who reported that the questioned signatures tallied with the standard signatures. Therefore, the bank is not liable to pay the amount to the customer.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the amount ` 1,05,000/- as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint has been illegally withdrawn from the account No.0119021320 of the plaintiff maintained in defendant's bank and the plaintiff is entitled to be decree of recovery of ` 1,05,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date on which amount was withdrawn till the date of payment ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 6 maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 5. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the allegations that money had been withdrawn from her account, although she had not signed the withdrawl slips in question. In support of her case, plaintiff examined PW-4 Y.P.Jain, handwriting expert. The said witness proved his report Ex. PW4-A. The withdrawal slips in question except withdrawal slip dated 20.1.2003 for an amount of ` 5,000/- were opined to be a result of fraud. The defendants also examined DW-6 Deepak Jain, handwriting expert, who tendered his report Ex.DW 6/A and opined that the withdrawal slips in question had been signed by the plaintiff herself. Learned trial Court has held that the withdrawal slips Ex.P-17, Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-21 had been examined minutely by the Court and the Court was satisfied that the same had not been signed by the plaintiff. Learned District Judge, in para 21 of the impugned judgment, has held as under:- “It is established from the overwhelming evidence available on record that the bank manager had learnt about the unauthorised withdrawals as early as in the month of February, 2003 but he had permitted two more R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 7 withdrawals to the tune of ` 70,000/- only thereafter without taking the remedial measures and without insisting on the passbook and identification of the customer from some employee of the bank and from the picture of the account holder available with the bank. The rules were flouted in as much as the amount was allowed to be withdrawn without the passbook and without insisting on the identification of the customer with the help of her photograph in the bank and identification by some employee of the branch. There is enough evidence available on record to hold that the entries in the passbook were made subsequently in a single sitting. The bank manager then sought opinion of Sh.Yash Pal Chand Jain, handwriting and finger print expert, Jind, who submitted report Ex.PW4/A, inter alia, expressing definite opinion that the questioned signatures did not tally with the standard signatures but for the voucher dated 20.1.2003 in respect of ` 5,000/- only. The branch manager then acquired the services of another expert in the form of Sh.Deepak Jain and obtained a more convenient report from him. However, it does not need the eye of an expert to conclude that the conclusions drawn by Sh. Yash Pal Chand Jain in his report Ex.PW4/A are far more convincing. It does not need the R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 8 eye of an expert to know that the standard signatures of Jarman Devi clearly show that she does not have matured handwriting and that the Devanagari script alphabets lack rhythm. However, the questioned signatures show that there is inconsistency in the form of letters “Ja”, “Ra” and “Da”. Even the 'Matras' show inconsistency in writing. Questioned signature Q7 shows that letter “Ja” has been written by an accomplished hand. Similarly, the curves in letter “Ja” in Q8 are strikingly different from the ones in Q5 to Q7. In fact, all the questioned signatures have so many inter se inconsistencies and distortions in all the letters. All the standard signatures give out unmistakable impression that they have been affixed by an illiterate person whose hand has not matured. Therefore, the statement of Smt.Jarman Devi (PW1) which constitutes the direct evidence in this case, receives the required corroboration from the report of the handwriting expert (Ex.PW4/A) Sh.Deepak Jain (DW-6) made an unsuccessful attempt to please his paymaster by penning down a convenient report which has failed to pass judicial scrutiny.” Thus, the plaintiff had been successful in establishing that the withdrawal slips in question had not been signed by her. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have R.S.A.No. 1693 of 2010 (O&M) 9 given a finding of fact that the withdrawal slips in question Ex.P-17, Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-21 had not been singed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 06, 2011 anita