State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yogendra Mohan Shukla vs State Bank Of India And Another on 3 November, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 / 2014
Sh. Yogendra Mohan Shukla S/o late Sh. Rambharose Lal Shukla
R/o House No. 36, Kila Street
Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India
through Senior Branch Manager
Branch Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar
2. State Bank of India
through Regional Manager (A.G.M.)
Kusumkhera, Haldwani
District Nainital
......Respondents / Opposite Parties
Sh. M.M. Lamba, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 03/11/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 37 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is having a saving bank account No. 10795301768 with the opposite party No. 1 - State Bank 2 of India, Kashipur. It was alleged that on 20.03.2010, theft took place in the house of the complainant and in the said theft, the cheque book of the complainant issued by the opposite party No. 1 besides other articles was stolen. On 21.03.2010, there was Sunday and the intimation with regard to the theft of the cheque book was given by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 on 22.03.2010 and on the same day, the complainant got the duplicate cheque book issued and the complainant came to know that sum of Rs. 90,000/- has been withdrawn from his account by use of cheque No. 175369 dated 20.03.2010 by forging his signatures. The said cheque did not contain the signatures of the complainant and the signatures of the complainant were forged on the said cheque. It was alleged that while making payment of the said cheque, the official of the bank did not match the signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
3. The opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the signatures on the cheque were matched by the official of the bank with the signatures of the complainant available in the record of the bank; that there is no provision that the payment of cheque of Rs. 50,000/- and above can not be made in cash; that the complainant has failed in keeping his cheque book in safe custody; that the complainant has himself been negligent in the matter and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 13.07.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
35. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The complainant has alleged that sum of Rs. 90,000/- has been withdrawn from his account by use of cheque No. 175369 dated 20.03.2010 by forging his signatures and the bank official did not care to match the signatures on the said cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant and the bank has made deficiency in service by making the payment of the said cheque.
7. In para 2 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that on 20.03.2010, theft took place in his house and in the said theft, his cheque book issued by the opposite party No. 1 besides other articles was stolen. In para 3 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that on 21.03.2010, there was Sunday and the intimation with regard to theft of the cheque book was given by him to the opposite party No. 1 on 22.03.2010. In para 4 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has averred that on 22.03.2010, he got the duplicate cheque book issued, whereupon he came to know that sum of Rs. 90,000/- has been withdrawn from his account by use of cheque No. 175369 dated 20.03.2010 by forging his signatures. In para 5 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that the said cheque did not contain his signatures and some other person has forged the signatures of the complainant on the said cheque.
8. Thus, from the perusal of the averments made in the consumer complaint, it is quite clear that the allegations made by the complainant are that of forgery and he has stated that some person has forged his signatures on the said cheque and by fraud, has illegally withdrawn sum of Rs. 90,000/- from his account. It is important to 4 mention here that the cheque is question is dated 20.03.2010, on which date, the complainant has alleged that theft has taken place in his house. Admittedly, the intimation with regard to theft of the cheque book was given by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 on 22.03.2010, as is evident from para 3 of the consumer complaint. Thus, on 20.03.2010, the opposite party No. 1 had no intimation or knowledge with regard to theft of the cheque book from his house and hence no negligence can be attributed to the official of the bank in honouring the said cheque.
9. So far as the question that the said cheque did not contain the signatures of the complainant and that the signatures of the complainant on the said cheque were forged by some other person is concerned, there is no dispute that the specimen signatures of the complainant and the disputed signatures of the complainant on the cheque in question have not been got analyzed / examined by the handwriting expert, as has also been stated by the District Forum in its impugned order. Whether the signatures of the complainant on the cheque in question have been forged and the said cheque does not contain the genuine signatures of the complainant, can only be established by the report of the handwriting expert and in absence of same, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the bank by honouring the cheque.
10. It is a settled law that the complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery etc. and trial of which would require voluminous evidence and consideration, are not to be entertained by the Consumer Fora. Learned counsel for the bank pressed into service a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Bright Transport Co. Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd.; II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC). In the said case, it was alleged that the cheque was encashed by 5 forging signatures. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. In the said decision, the Hon'ble National Commission placed reliance on its earlier decision given in Original Petition No. 24 of 2005; V.S. Badlani Vs. Indian Bank, wherein it was held as under:
"Seeing various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Commission, it is evident that wherever not only the complicated questions of law but disputed questions of facts, relating to unauthorized representations made about paying higher rate of interest and requirement of recording voluminous evidence etc. and relating to forgery and conspiracy involving eight persons and other points mentioned earlier are involved, it would be desirable that the matter should not be dealt with by this Commission and could be relegated to the Civil Court. We feel that in the present state of law and observation of the Supreme Court itself and the aforesaid circumstances, we can not take any other view."
11. In the present case also, as is stated above, the allegations made by the complainant in his consumer complaint are that of forgery and he has stated that his signatures on the cheque is question were forged by some other person and hence the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable before the District Forum and the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant can seek redressal of his grievance from a competent court of civil jurisdiction. We are also in agreement with the said view taken by the District Forum and it also appears to us that filing of the consumer complaint before the District Forum was nothing, but an attempt to misuse the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora only with a view to save on the court fee payable in a suit before the civil court.
612. The District Forum has properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which does not suffer from any infirmity and is fit to be confirmed. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K