Hi rajesh, harish and others!

I fully agree that giving a check book signed and duly attested by Bank 
officials  to a VI customer is definitely a risky affair. In certain 
situations, such check books can easily be used to our disadvantage. 
Similarly, if we leave this issue for IBA officials to decide, one can 
easily imagine with what sort  of guidelines they will come up. As far as 
verifying the issuance of check over phone is concerned, it may work in few 
situations but making this a  part of guideline seems to be more difficult. 
What if my Banker passes a check and according to them it was verified over 
phone, but I say it  was not? what if the customer is out of town  and not 
reachable  through phone? even  in case of cell phones, if customer is out 
of network, what decision a banker would or should take?  I think certain 
things may be allright  in practice but when it comes to their 
incorporation in guidelines, there  shouldn't be any room for ambiguity. 
More over, it is very difficult for either party to prove their case in a 
court of law. In one way or other,every party to a negotiable instrument 
should be reasonably accommodated, be it Vi customer or Bank. Suggesting a 
fool proof system is a  huge task, perhaps impossible.    if we suggest that
 In case of all  third party account payee checks, an undertaking from the 
VI customer  can be obtain that   bank should pass all third party account 
payee checks  (crossed checks)  issued by  the VI customers irrespective of 
variations in signatures, anyone can use the check book of a VI customer and 
Bank officials  will not be liable for anything since they have the 
undertaking of the customer. If we ask banks to be lenient while verifying 
the signature of VI customers, what precisely  is or should be the limit of 
that leniency? in this case, bank officials will be more hesitant to open 
the account of VI customers because the level of leniency is to be  decided 
by them and they can be held liable. wondering what modus opperendy is used 
in USA or other countries to pay  bearer  checks of VI customers? in my 
humble opinion option of giving an undertaking is more practicable. as   we 
all know, the collecting Banker, in case of a crossed check is legally bound 
to collect the check in good faith and without any negligence. it means that 
check issued in favour of x can not be collected in y's account. With K.Y.C. 
norms becoming more stringent it is comparatively easy to trace the customer 
in whose account proceeds of a crossed check  have been credited.
. As far as payment of cash is concerned according to me for the time being, 
we may rely on ATMs. I am reproducing few sections of  Negotiable instrument 
act, 1881 which defines the rights and responsibilities of various parties 
to a negotiable instrument.



123.Cheque  crossed  generally. Where a cheque bears  across  its

face  an  addition  of the words "and company "  or  any  abbreviation

thereof,  between  two parallel transverse lines, or of  two  parallel

transverse  lines  simply,  either with or without  the  words  "  not

negotiable," that addition shall be deemed a crossing, and the  cheque

shall be deemed to be crossed generally.





124.



Cheque crossed specially.





124.Cheque  crossed  specially. Where a cheque bears  across  its

face  an addition of the name of a banker, either with or without  the

words " not negotiable," that addition shall be deemed a crossing, and

the cheque shall be deemed to be crossed specially, and to be  crossed

to that banker.





125.



Crossing after issue.





125.Crossing after issue. Where a cheque is uncrossed, the holder

may cross it generally or specially.





Where a cheque is crossed generally, the holder may cross  it

specially.



Where a cheque is crossed generally or specially, the  holder

may add the words"' not negotiable".



---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Subs. by Act 8 of 1919, s. 5, for " payable to, or to the order  of,

a specified person ".

---------------------------------------------------------------------







Where a cheque is crossed specially, the banker to whom it is

crossed  may again cross it specially to another banker.  his

agent, for collection.







126.



Payment of cheque crossed generally.





126.Payment  of  cheque  crossed generally.  Where  a  cheque  is

crossed  generally,  the banker on whom it is drawn shall not  pay  it

otherwise than to a banker.



Payment  of cheque crossed specially. Where a cheque  is  crossed

specially,  the banker on whom it is drawn shall not pay it  otherwise

than to the banker to whom it is crossed, or his agent for collection.







127.



Payment of cheque crossed specially more than once.





127.Payment of cheque crossed specially more than once.Where   a

cheque  is  crossed  specially to more than one  banker,  except  when

crossed to an agent for the purpose of collection, the banker on  whom

it is drawn shall refuse payment thereof.





128.



Payment in due course of crossed cheque.





128.Payment in due course of crossed cheque.Where the banker  on

whom  a crossed cheque is drawn- has paid the same in due course,  the

banker  paying the cheque, and in  case such cheque has come  to  the

hands of the payee) the drawer thereof, shall respectively be entitled

to  the  same  rights,  and be placed in  the  same  position  in  all

respects,  as they would respectively be entitled to and placed in  if

the  amount  of the cheque bad been paid to and received by  the  true

owner thereof.







129.



Payment of crossed cheque out of due course.





129.Payment of crossed cheque out of due course.Any      banker

paying  a  cheque crossed generally otherwise than to a banker,  or  a

cheque crossed specially otherwise than to the banker to whom the same

is  crossed,  or his agent for collection, being a  banker,  shall  be

liable  to  the true owner of the cheque for any loss he  may  sustain

owing to the cheque having been so paid.







130.



Cheque bearing "not negotiable".





130.Cheque  bearing  "not negotiable". A person taking  a  cheque

crossed generally or specially, bearing in either case the words " not

negotiable,"  shall  not have, and shall not be capable of  giving,  a

better  title  to the cheque than that which the person from  whom  he

took it had.





131.



Non-liability of banker receiving payment of cheque.





131.Non-liability of banker receiving payment of cheque. A banker

who  has in good faith and without negligence received payment  for  a

customer of a cheque crossed generally or  specially to himself  shall

not,  in  case  the title to the cheque proves  defective,  incur  any

liability to, the true owner of the cheque by  reason only of having

received such payment.






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harish Kotian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [AI] Bank Guidelines


> Hi Rajesh
>
> This will be like signing all the cheque leaves and expecting the blind 
> person to take care of it. Would any able bodied person accept such a 
> situation? This will certainly be unacceptable. Besides, it won't give any 
> security to the banks as the blind customer is forced into a situation 
> which is intrensically liable for cheating. This would be a very bad 
> guidelines.
>
> A more sensible approach which will provide both security and comfort both 
> to the customer and the blind is that the bank may seek confirmation by 
> phone whenever they have doubt about the genuineness of the signature on 
> the instrument.
>
> If the customer has high volume of cheque use then the banker knows the 
> patterns of change of signature and can use the phone option when in need. 
> If the volume is low, anyway it should not be a big financial drain.
>
> This can be a prudent practise and this should not go as guidelines. Now a 
> days insisting of carrying a phone is not a big deal.
>
> I understand, Some banks are already exercising this option.
>
> So, in the guidelines, we can leave it to the banks to draw their own 
> safeguards.
>
> This could be one option, there could be more and we can keep room for it.
>
> Harish.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rajesh Asudani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 5:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [AI] Bank Guidelines
>
>
>> Worries in attestation clause are two:
>>
>> 1. risk of theft and misuse;
>>
>> It can be easily tackled by safe custody which is the responsibility of 
>> customer anyway when it comes to credit card etc. and issuing stop 
>> payment instruction immediately upon such an occurrence.
>>
>> It should be weighed against forgery which would be prevented effectively 
>> by attestation clause and ease in passing cheques by bank officials 
>> without leniency etc.
>>
>> 2. Something enterim becoming permanent in India.
>>
>> Well, it is the fault of system, and biometric technology may take much 
>> longer to be universally installed and used than is being envisaged here. 
>> And, even if a beneficial measure is firmly entrenched, we may gradually 
>> drag it out in favor of ease of other technology which will be eventually 
>> realized by one and all. Many detrimental practices have gained firm 
>> ground in indian system, many enterim measures like reservations for 
>> Certain casts have become "basic structure" of polity, so to say! So even 
>> if attestation becomes firmly rooted, at least it is not going to harm 
>> us. I am sure biometric technology would eventually phase it out.
>>
>> To sum up, twin advantages of preventing forgery by combating 
>> inconsistency of signature and relieving bankers of unnecessary anxiety 
>> about accounts of VI, do outway harms of possible theft and permanence of 
>> practice which may be forestalled by stop payment instructions in first 
>> case and enlightened petitions in later. Forgery on one hand is clearly 
>> liability of bankers from which they endeavor to save their skin and 
>> largely undetectable unless it has already caused damage, unlike theft 
>> which comes to notice of owner easily and with preventable damage.
>>
>> Rest I leave to you all, but please do not misinterpret me or assume that 
>> I merely write for semantic jugglery and merit only the slightest 
>> consideration, if at all!!!
>>
>> I am, at present unaware of any other objections to my suggestion as 
>> those having them have chosen not to enlighten me about them, if put 
>> publicly on this list or mailed to me in private, I will be in a position 
>> to endeavor to answer them only when the stipulated time would have 
>> expired, as I am leaving for weekend.
>>
>> Rajesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pamnani
>> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:37 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [AI] Bank Guidelines
>>
>> Hi Friends, I have incorporated most of the suggestions. There is one 
>> issue on which I want some brain storming.
>> This is regarding cheques issued by the visually impaired.
>> In the general guidelines I have suggested that banks should introduce 
>> biometric verification or seals etc.
>>
>> Now to be honest most banks dont have a system to verify at present and 
>> cannot do so for atleast 6 months.
>> So what do we do in the interim for cheques which have thumb impression 
>> and for cheques on which signature does not tally. I had said there 
>> should be some leniency during verification.
>>
>> I have received a suggestion from one member that banks should be asked 
>> to attest our signature or thumb impression when they give us our cheque 
>> book. So the empty chequeswith only our signature and the attestation 
>> will be lying with us.
>> The worry is that we can lose the cheque book and that someone can fill 
>> up details and withdraw from our account.
>> The other problem is that our cheques look different and that all banks 
>> would insist on it.
>> If we do think of attestation then it will be as an interim measure until 
>> biometric. You all know in India to get this attestation out of the 
>> system it will take 5 yearts and something which is interim will become 
>> permant.
>>
>> So should I put in this attestation clause or leave it now and let the 
>> IBA suggest it if necessary and deal with it then?
>>
>> Need feedback by 9.30 am Monday morning.
>> Come on lets start the debate.
>> Kanchan
>> Kanchan Pamnani
>> Advocate & Solicitor
>> 9, Suleman Chambers,
>> Battery Street, Colaba,
>> Mumbai - 400 039.
>>
>>
>> Join Access India convention: For updates on it visit: 
>> http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm
>>
>> To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> with the subject unsubscribe.
>>
>> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, 
>> please visit the list home page at
>> 
>> http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
>>
>> Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
>> message and/or attachments to it may contain
>> confidential or privileged information. If you are
>> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
>> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
>> information contained in this e-mail message
>> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this communication in error,
>> please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
>> immediately and permanently delete the message
>> and any attachments. Thank you
>>
>> Join Access India convention: For updates on it visit: 
>> http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm
>>
>> To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> with the subject unsubscribe.
>>
>> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, 
>> please visit the list home page at
>> 
>> http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
>>
>
>
> Join Access India convention: For updates on it visit: 
> http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with the subject unsubscribe.
>
> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, 
> please visit the list home page at
>  http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
> 



Join Access India convention: For updates on it visit: 
http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm

To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe.

To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please 
visit the list home page at
  http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in

Reply via email to