Petitioners/Complainants filed consumer complaints before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘District Forum’) against Respondents/Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service on their part. The consumer complaints were allowed by the District Forum. 2. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its common impugned order dated 16.11.2010, allowed the appeals and dismissed all the complaints. 3. Since, facts are similar and common question of law is involved, hence all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order 4. Complaint Case No.814 of 2008 (Bharpur Singh Vs. The Axis Bank Ltd.) is taken as the lead case. 5. It is the case of petitioner that he had opened an account with Respondent-Bank at Chandigarh and deposited Rs.11,93,304/- in the said account. Subsequently, when he approached the bank for withdrawing the amount he was told that amount has already been withdrawn. He requested the Bank to issue statement of account. When the same was not issued, he served a legal notice dated 30.6.2008 and came to know that Rs.11.83 Lac was withdrawn from his account through cheque No.063989 dated 12.6.2008 in favour of Gurwinder Singh. According to petitioner, he never issued the said cheque allowing the said withdrawal. Therefore, payment was made by Respondent- Bank without properly verifying his signatures on the cheque. Petitioner made representation to the Bank and when no action was taken, he filed consumer complaint seeking refund of Rs.11,83,000/- and compensation of Rs.2 Lacs on account of mental harassment besides cost of litigation. 6. Respondents in their reply submitted that petitioner had opened an account with them but it pleaded that a cheque book was issued to him, out of which he issued the cheque in favour of Gurwinder Singh. On that basis, Rs.11.83 Lacs was transferred to the account of Gurwinder Singh, who is a customer of the Bank. The said Gurwinder Singh was a necessary party because he is likely to throw light on several vital issues and circumstances as to how the funds were transferred in his favour. His presence was likely to expose the facts of the case and may falsify the version of the petitioner. Respondents, prayed for dismissal of the complaint on this ground. 7. It was also pleaded that cheque of Rs.11.83 Lacs was issued by the petitioner to Gurwinder Singh. However, petitioner never reported the loss of the cheque book nor asked for “stop payment”. Petitioner’s contention that no cheque was issued by him to Gurwinder Singh, is therefore incorrect. It was also alleged that respondents reported the matter to the police. The FIR has been recorded and case is under investigation with Economic Offences Wing. Thus, the case relates to forgery of the cheque, in which evidence would be needed and parties are to be cross examined having a lengthy process. Therefore, petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of a civil suit and result of criminal proceedings lodged by the respondents should be awaited. It was also alleged, that signatures of the petitioner on the cheque in question were duly compared by the staff of the Bank and appeared to be similar with the standard signature. Further, cheque itself was issued from the cheque book issued to the petitioner. Thus, there could be no doubt in the mind of the Bank officials not to encash the same. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part. 8. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Chandigarh vide order dated 26.2.2010, allowed the consumer complaint with following directions to the Ops; “to jointly and severally credit the amount of Rs.11.83 lacs in the saving bank account No.302010100079082 of the complainant on account of making wrongful debit entry dated 12.06.2008 for the like amount in the said account. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony besides paying Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.” 9. Being aggrieved, Respondent –Bank filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 10. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that cheque book produced by petitioner revealed that no leaf from that cheque book was used by him for withdrawal of any amount. Thus, District Forum rightly observed that in these circumstances, respondent should not have cleared the cheque. Further, as per report of the handwriting expert produced by the petitioner, there are number of divergences, which are basic in nature and showed that the disputed signatures on the cheque in question, were not of the complainant/the person who had signed the standard specimen signatures on the account opening form and elsewhere. District Forum had personally compared the disputed signatures on the cheque and standard original signatures of the complainant and recorded a finding of fact, that the two signatures did not tally with each other. So, it stand proved beyond doubt that identity of the account holder (complainant ) and authenticity of his signatures on the disputed cheque was not properly and carefully checked and verified by the respondents before clearing the cheque of such a heavy amount in question. Thus, it is a clear case of gross deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 12. In support, learned counsel has relied upon following judgments; i) Surjit Rai Vs. PremKumar Khera and others, 1995(2)PLR 140; ii) Geeta Jethani and others Vs. Airport Authority of India and others, 2004(3) CLT; 13. On the other hand, it has been submitted by ld. counsel for the respondents, that Gurwinder Singh was a necessary party in this case in whose favour petitioner had issued the cheque. Further, it is asserted that statement of account clearly reflects that account was debited in normal course of business relying upon the signatures on the relevant cheque. The signatures on the cheque were duly compared by the staff of the Bank. Since, signatures appeared to be similar to the standard signatures of the petitioner given to the Bank, the cheque was cleared and amount was debited from the account of the petitioner. It has further been pleaded that leaf of the cheque was from the same cheque book which was issued to the petitioner by the respondent-bank and cheque was cleared and amount was paid in good faith by observing all precautions and care. It has further been pleaded that respondent- bank was never intimated about the loss of the leaf of the cheque nor any instructions to stop the payment was given. In these circumstances, respondents had no option but to clear the cheque and make the payment. 14. In support, ld. counsel for the respondents relied upon following judgments; i) Devashish Mitra Vs. The Managing Director, Lakshmi Varsha Company and another, I (1992) CPJ 30 (NC); ii) M/s. Shivaji Rao Vs. M/s. Daman Motor Company and others, I(19923 CPJ 88 (NC); iii) Safe Home Developers and Contractors Vs. Samata Sahakari Bank Ltd., IV (2012) CPJ 729 (NC) and iv) UCO Bank Vs. S.D. Wadhwa, III (2013) CPJ 523 (NC) 15. The State Commission in its impugned order observed; “14. Interestingly, the complainant has a soft corner for Gurwinder Singh who is beneficiary of the said amount as he has not been joined by the complainant as a party to this complaint. It is not a case in which the amount was paid to a third party at the counter whose whereabouts are not known. Gurwinder Singh is an account holder of the OP Bank and the cheque was a crossed cheque meaning thereby that the total amount of Rs.11.83 Lacs was transferred from the appellant Bank to the account of Gurwinder Singh in his Bank Account. The learned counsel argued that the complainant is rather shielding Gurwinder Singh and neither any complaint was lodged against him with the police nor he was made a party to this complaint though, the entire amount was received by him and in case the contention of the complainant is true, the amount is to be recovered from Gurwinder Singh. The complainant has not given any reasons as to why Gurwinder Singh should not have been made a party to the present complaint and why relief should not have been claimed against him. The presence of Gurwinder Singh was most necessary in the case because he could unfold many of the facts regarding the genuineness of the cheque, which have not been disclosed by the complainant. It appears, the complainant first withdrew the amount through a cheque and transferred the same in favour of Gurwinder Singh and now he wants to enrich himself again by claiming the same amount from the Bank alleging that earlier transfer of the money made on his behalf was without any authority. 16. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the OP/appellant is free to recover the amount from Gurwinder Singh after crediting the same to their account. According to the learned counsel, in such a situation, the OP would be required to file a civil suit to recover the amount from Gurwinder Singh aforesaid. In that civil suit, Gurwinder Singh may defend the transfer on the basis of the cheque in question alleging that it was a genuine one and had been actually signed by the complainant. If his version is believed and the civil suit is dismissed, it would create anomalous position because in these proceedings, the same cheque has been held to be a forgery by the learned District Forum but this finding would not be relevant before the Civil Court, which may give a contradictory finding. In that eventuality, the OP even after having transferred the amount to the account of the complainant in pursuance of the impugned orders would not get any amount from Gurwinder Singh. The learned counsel argued that in fact, the complainant and Gurwinder Singh have joined hands with each other to defraud the Bank and that is why Gurwinder Singh has neither been made a party to the present complaint nor has been summoned as a witness by the complainant to prove his contention. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant has told a lie when he said that the cheque book was not issued to him by the Bank. The learned counsel referred to Annexure R-1 showing that the cheque book was issued to him on 3.6.2008 and was delivered through courier on 5.6.2008. It was received by one Mohinder. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that Mohinder is not known to him nor he has any such acquaintance. However, this argument cannot be accepted. Annexure R-3 is the account opening form filled up by the complainant in which his present address has been given that of GTM Trading Company, SCO No.394, Cabin No.5, Panchkula, Haryana along with his permanent address of Khamano, Ward No.2, The. Khamano, Distt. Fatehpur Sahib, Punjab. It becomes suspicious that if he was residing in Distt. Fatehpur Sahib, why he came to Chandigarh to open this account and why he gave the address of GTM Trading Company. Obviously, the OPs were to send the cheque book at his latest address. The learned counsel for the OPs referred to Rule 11.2 of the Savings Bank Account Rules in view of which a cheque book would be sent by registered post at the cost and responsibility of the account holder concerned, unless he calls in person or sends a messenger with a proper letter of authority and with the requisition slip duly signed, which he did not. The learned counsel also referred to the OP Bank’s terms and conditions in this respect and according to Condition No.11, a customer can request for issue of a cheque book and opt for either collecting the same in person from the concerned branch or have the cheque book mailed to the address given in the registration form. The courier charges will be borne by the customer. It is argued by the learned counsel that in view of these provisions, the cheque book was sent by courier to the address of the complainant at his own risk and responsibility. It was his duty to see that the cheque book was received by a proper person. He never complained to the OP Bank if he had not received the cheque book or if Mohinder aforesaid was not his agent/family member. The cheque book was, therefore, presumed to have been delivered to the complainant. The cheque in question was issued from the same cheque book. It was signed by the complainant and if on its basis, as per the direction of the complainant, the amount was transferred to the account of Gurwinder Singh, the OPs cannot be held deficient in rendering service. 18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and all the complaints filed by the respective complainants were liable to be dismissed. All the appeals bearing No.141, 142, 146 and 147 all of 2010, therefore, must succeed. The same are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum are set aside and consequently, the complaints are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.” 16. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under this section, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” 18. Petitioner/Complainant in paras no.3 and 4 of its complaint has averred; “3. That the complainant was having the credit balance of Rs.11,93,304/- (Eleven lacs ninety three thousand three hundred four only) and interest to be credited by the bank Opposite Party No.2 from time to time in his account. 4. That the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 for withdrawing the amount but was not made the payment on the pretext that the amount has already been withdrawn from his account.” 19. As per above averments, petitioner has nowhere stated as to on which date he approached the respondents for withdrawal of the amount. Nor petitioner has stated on which date, payment was refused by the respondents. Be that as it may, it is the case of petitioner that cheque was withdrawn from his account through cheque no.63989 dated 12.6.2008 and it was transferred in the account of one Gurwinder Singh, though he never issued the above cheque in the name of Gurwinder Singh. 20. Thus, as per petitioner’s own case it was Gurwinder Singh who was the beneficiary of the sum of Rs.11,93,304/-. Under such circumstances, Gurwinder Singh was a necessary party in this case. Respondent in its written statement had categorically taken a preliminary objection to this effect and has stated that sum of Rs.11.83 lacs had been transferred to the account of Gurwinder Singh, who is also their customer. 21. Under these circumstances, Gurwinder Singh was the best person who could have thrown light on this entire transaction. However, the petitioner, despite objection of the respondents taken at the initial stage itself, for reasons best known to him, has chosen not to implead Gurwinder Singh, who was the only beneficiary of the cheque amount. As such, inference has to be drawn against the petitioner. Moreover, the moment Respondent –Bank came to know about such transaction, it got registered an FIR with the Police. However, petitioner did not act in this regard at all. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner who is purported to have suffered a loss of Rs.11.83 lacs, to have lodged complaint with the Police immediately, since he was the victim. On this important aspect also, the petitioner is absolutely silent. 22. The State Commission in its impugned order has dealt with all the relevant issues in great detail. We fully agree with the reasoning given by the State Commission and do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity or illegality, in the impugned order. 23. Accordingly, there is no merit in these revision petitions and same stand dismissed. 24. There shall be no order as to cost. | 
