ORAL JUDGMENT

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGOANKAR

            We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.      The appellant filed consumer complaint case no. C-251/2001 before the State Commission, Delhi for compensation on the ground that his travelers cheques worth US $ 28,000 were allowed to be encashed by the respondent – bank without proper verification of the identity and notwithstanding the fact that he had reported about loss of the travelers cheques.

3.      The State Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the spacious ground that the agreement between the parties imply that the payment of the travelers cheques cannot be stopped and the bank is only required to verify identity of the person who did present the cheque for encashment.  The State Commission held that the appellant was required to sign TCs on the upper left corner of each of the traveler cheque.  The State Commission further held that the appellant himself signed those cheques in different manners on the top of it, sometimes showing his name as “PC Harjinder Singh”, sometimes showing his name as “H. Singh”, sometime putting a sign of triangle or sometimes signing it as “S. Sharma”.

4.      Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issues involved in the complaint are of complex nature.  The question whether the travelers cheques were stolen away and that the encashment was done by somebody else than the appellant, without his authority, and prior intimation of the Respondent’s bank are required to be determined after recording of necessary evidence, including the evidence of the bank officials, hand writing experts and the persons who had identified the presenters of the cheque.  We do not wish to comment on the nature of evidence that is required to be adduced in as much as it will be a sweet will of the parties to tender such evidence. We are of the opinion that such vexed questions could not have been dealt with by the State Commission and parties should have been relegated to the Civil Court to agitate the dispute for determination.  The State Commission should have allowed the parties to take up all the relevant issues for a regular trial before the civil court instead of dealing with the aspects of the change of hand writing, change of mode of signature on the cheques and change of the names on the upper left side of the cheque in as much as such questions could be considered on recording of proper evidence. We are of the opinion that the complaint could not be dismissed merely on verification of the copies of the cheques since the original cheques were not placed on record nor the attending circumstances were made available so as to give finding about identify of the person/(s) who had encashed the travelers cheques.

5.          Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in as much as the State Commission travelled beyond the required scope of  inquiry.  One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the trial of consumer complaint case is by way of summary inquiry.  Therefore, we deem it proper to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment with direction that the parties shall be relegated to seek appropriate remedy before the civil court.

6.      In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.  The parties are relegated to the civil court remedy as may be permissible under the law.  The delay, if any, may be considered by the civil court for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.  The Respondents shall present all the original cheques, which were encashed, if so available, and if they are not shown to be available, the Respondent shall give substantial reasons for non-availability thereof, otherwise the civil court will be at liberty to draw appropriate inference in as much as ordinarily the cheques could not have been destroyed when the matter was and is under lis. 

          The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  No cost.