Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below, i.e. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sidhi and M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bhopal, State Bank of India (to be referred as bank) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard Mr.S.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devendra Singh for the respondent complainant. The petition has been filed after delay of 36 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, we condone the delay and on payment of Rs.2500/- as cost to the respondent. 3. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint and then passing of the impugned order have been amply noted by the fora below in their orders and need no repetition at our end. The main allegation of deficiency in service against the bank being that the opposite party bank with whom the complainant was maintaining a Savings Bank Account had made two payments, one of Rs.80,000/- and the other of Rs.21,000/- unauthorisedly to somebody else than the complainant, based on certain forged withdrawal forms which were never issued by the complainant. On the other hand, the plea of the bank was that the payment of these amounts was made to the complainant based on the withdrawal forms. Both the fora below have held that signatures appearing on the two withdrawal forms do not tally with the specimen signatures appearing on the account opening form and, therefore, took the view that the payment has been unauthorisedly made by the bank to someone on the basis of forged withdrawal forms. 4. Mr. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner bank has also filed an application seeking permission to bring on record the report of a handwriting expert, namely, Mr. S.K. Kelkar of Nagpur, who, it appears, has been engaged after the matter has been tried and tested at two fora below. Through that report, the said handwriting expert has made an attempt to show that the questioned signatures appearing on the two withdrawal forms were made by the complainant himself, though by disguising the signatures in a different manner and executing the same in different manner. Mr. Aggarwal states that this report is necessary for the proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. The prayer is opposed by the counsel for the respondent complainant. Having considered the matter and in particular that the only controversy between the parties is as to whether two withdrawal forms are genuine or forged, the question needs to be answered authoritatively by the consumer fora. In our opinion, it will meet the ends of justice, if we grant the prayer of the petitioner bank to file this report which will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- with the right of rebuttal to the complainant to lead any further evidence including the evidence of an expert to the evidence of the petitioner bank. This will necessitate reconsideration of the matter by the District Forum. 5. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the fora below are hereby set aside and the complaint is remanded back to the board of the concerned District Forum, Sidhi for answering the complaint afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties as indicated above. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 11.03.2011. Dasti to both sides. 6. Mr. Gupta states that a sum of Rs.65,160/- has been deposited in this Commission as per the directions of this Commission. In the circumstances, we direct that the said amount be remitted to the District Forum, Sidhi and will remain deposited there awaiting the final outcome of the complaint. |
