State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajnish Kumar Upadhyay vs Union Bank Of India Through Its Chairman on 29 April, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 / 2007
Sh. Rajnish Kumar Upadhyay
S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Upadhyay
R/o Village Binarsi, P.O. Chudiyala
District Hardwar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Union Bank of India through its Chairman
Head Office 239 Back Bay Reclamation
Mumbai - 400021
2. The Branch Manager
Branch: K.L. Polytechnics, Ram Nagar Crossing
Roorkee
.....Respondents / Opposite Parties
Sh. Ajay Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Gopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 29/04/2008
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 16.04.2007 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 451 of 2006, with the observation that the case pertain to alleged forgery of the signatures of the complainant - account holder on the bank's cheque and which dispute on the basis of the hand writing experts' reports of the respective parties, cannot be effectively decided in the summary jurisdiction of the Forum. The complainant was, thus, given liberty to seek legal remedy against the bank by filing a regular civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction.2
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the material on record. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. It need to be stated at the outset that the complete evidence of the parties being on record, we proceed to decide the case on its merit as we do not find ourselves in agreement with the view that the dispute could not have effectively been resolved in the summary jurisdiction of the Forum.
3. The case of the complainant was that bearer cheque of Rs. 15,000/- issued in the name of Vikas Kumar Upadhyay on 22.11.2005 (Paper No. 34) did not bear his signatures and that it was forged to fraudulently and illegally withdraw amount of Rs. 15,000/- from his bank account. Complainant alleged that his banker made deficiency in service in getting the cheque encashed on its presentation and debiting the amount of Rs. 15,000/- in his bank account No. 16972. The stand of the bank was that the cheque was got encashed on proper verification of the signature and that no deficiency in service was made on its part in making the payment in the ordinary course of its banking business. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the parties referred to respective reports of the hand writing experts. Considering the broad features of the case, we have no hesitation in observing that the opinion of hand writing expert Brij Bala Thakur (Paper Nos. 71 to 73 filed by the bank on record) based on proper observation of the writing style etc. of the complainant, can safely be accepted to record a finding that the above- mentioned cheque bear signature of the complainant Rajnish Kumar Upadhyay and, therefore, on primary and proper verification, the bank was justified in getting the cheque encashed on its presentation by the bearer. In the face of the facts of the case, we do not think that the report of the hand writing expert Ajay Mohan Paliwal (Paper Nos. 49 3 to 55) could safely be taken to discard the well reasoned opinion of the hand writing expert of the bank. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that even by naked eye, the signature of the complainant Rajnish Kumar Upadhyay tally with his admitted signatures on cheques dated 28.10.2005; 20.10.2005 and 25.10.2005 as well as specimen signatures on bank account opening form (Paper No. 35). There is not an iota of reliable evidence on record to indicate that the blank cheque had been stolen or had surreptitiously been taken away from the complainant by someone else and later on by forgery, amount of Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn from the complainant's bank account. Complainant has not even shown that his cheque book was ever misplaced or lost and, thus, anybody could have had his hands upon it to take away one of the cheque from it in order to fraudulently withdraw the amount. Under these circumstances also, the evidence on behalf of the complainant was not at all sufficient to prove his allegation that the bank made deficiency in service in getting the cheque of Rs. 15,000/- encashed on presentation by the person, who was not issued the cheque by the complainant.
4. An attempt was made by the complainant to suggest that one Sachin Kumar studying in a Polytechnic, Almora sent a letter to Bank's Manager with his admission that by making forgery by him, cheque of Rs. 15,000/- was presented and said amount was withdrawn by him from the complainant's bank account. According to the complainant, copy of such letter (Paper Nos. 45 to 46) was given to him by the Bank Manager. This fact had not been admitted on behalf of the bank or the Bank's Manager. The copy of said letter appear to be a brought up document and could not have at all been taken to support the allegation of the complainant.
45. From above, it is evident that the evidence on record being sufficient, prove beyond doubt that the bank did not make any deficiency in service in getting the cheque of Rs. 15,000/- encashed and consequently debiting the said sum in the bank account of the complainant. The complainant was, thus, not entitled to any relief and his complaint was liable to be dismissed on merit.
6. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal