State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ram Inner Chauhan vs State Bank Of India, Thorugh Its ... on 28 July, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/14/840
Mr.Ram Inner Chauhan
Batulahi Village
Batulahi Post Office
Deoria District
Uttar Pradesh 274 001 .....Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India
Through its Manager
Dadar Branch, Dadar .........Respondent
Mumbai 400 014
BEFORE: Justice Mr.A.P.Bhangale, President
Mr.A.K.Zade, Member
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Justice Mr.A.P.Bhangale, President
Heard Mr.Bhaskar Yogi-Advocate for appellant and Mr.Vinay S.Bhorge-Advocate i/b. M/s.Utangale & Co. for respondent.
This appeal arise out of judgment and order passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/12/157 decided on 01/09/2014, whereby award was passed directing the opponent bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 4% p.a. within one month from 01/09/2014. (Note:- This order has been complied with by the bank as submitted by the parties through their advocates. Even indemnity bond was executed by the complainant for the amount received. Sum of Rs.5000/- granted towards litigation costs is also received).
Facts briefly stated are that according to complainant Mr.Ram Inner Chauhan, when he was in abroad, his son in absence of complainant stolen 13 cheques which were misused by the complainant with forged signature of the complainant to receive sum of Rs.3,70,000/- over the period of time in November -December 2011. About this incidence, the complainant filed complaint against State Bank of India through its Manager, Dadar Branch, Mumbai and furthermore, the bank had also filed FIR through Mr.D.M.Chavan regarding cheating with the bank on the basis of forged cheques. Complaint was filed against Pintoo Ram Inner Chauhan, son of Ram Inner Chauhan, who had encashed 13 cheques receiving total sum of Rs.3,45,000/- over the period of time. The said criminal proceeding is pending for an offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 of I.P.C. In the said criminal proceeding the complainant who suffered damages can surely pray to the Criminal Court for imposition of sentence and passing judgment to receive not only costs of the proceedings but also compensation, which must be reasonable and recoverable in any Civil Court. When such sentence is passed, Criminal Court is certainly entitled to order costs and pay compensation as contemplated under section 357 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is open for the complainant and bank as informant bank to recover the financial loss if they have suffered on account of presentation of forged cheques by son of the complainant. Award passed by the Forum below is based on the pleadings and affidavits and mainly on the ground that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank. While honouring the forged cheques presented to it, precaution was expected by the bank to inform the complainant, who was residing abroad or to intimate him through SMS or E-mail, etc. so that complainant could have been alerted in time in that view of the matter. Considering the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, we think no just and reasonable ground is available to disturb the impugned judgment and order. If complainant is interested in adequate reimbursement of loss, he could certainly appear as witness before the Criminal Court and apply before the Criminal Court of losses suffered by the complainant. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 28th July, 2017.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [A.K.ZADE] MEMBER Ms