The state commission observed that since the bank allowed encashment of the cheques despite receiving information about the theft, its concerned officials "in conspiracy" with others "deliberately" did not stop payment on the stolen cheques.
"When the information was received by the appellant/ opposite party (American Express) with regard to the theft of the traveller cheques, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant to stop the payment, which has not been done.
The order came on the bank's appeal against the decision of a district forum which had directed American Express to pay Rs 80,000 to the complainant, Delhi resident Sushma Agarwal.
The commission, while dismissing the bank's appeal, noted that the complainant's husband had on July 7, 2003 registered an FIR and also informed American Express about the theft of the cheques, but it still encashed them on July 22, 2003.
The commission, however, rejected the contention.
According to Agarwal's complaint in the district forum, the cheques were stolen from her husband's car while he had stopped over at a chemist shop while on his way to submit the unused cheques at the bank.