| First Appeal No. A/07/185 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. First Appeal No. of District Mumbai) |
| | | | 1. RUSSEY MINOCHER GANDHY | | GIRNAR APTS, 2B, 55, PALI HILL, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. BANK OF INDIA | | HILL RD, BANDRA BRANCH, RAMDAS NAYAK MARG, 56, HILL RD, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050. | | 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER/BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA | | HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
| | First Appeal No. A/07/186 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. First Appeal No. of District Mumbai) |
| | | | 1. RUSSEY MINOCHER GANDHY | | GIRNAR APTS, 2B, 55, PALI HILL, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. BANK OF INDIA | | HILL RD, BANDRA BRANCH, RAMDAS NAYAK MARG, 56, HILL RD, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050. | | 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER/ BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA | | HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
| | First Appeal No. A/07/187 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. First Appeal No. of District Mumbai) |
| | | | 1. RATI RUSSEY GANDHY | | GIRNAR APARTMENTS, 2B, 55, PALI HILL, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. BANK OF INDIA | | HILL RD, BANDRA BRANCH, RAMDAS NAYAK MARG, 56, HILL RD, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050. | | 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER/BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA | | HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: Heard Mr.N.S. Parte, Advocate for the Appellant. These three appeals take an exception to the separate orders dated 12/01/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.64/2006, 63/2003 and 62/2003, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai. Since they involve identical facts and common questions of law, we are disposing of these appeals by a common order. Forum below dismissed the consumer complaints and feeling aggrieved thereby the original Complainants have filed these appeals. The case of the Complainants is that Respondent/Opposite Party failed to show due diligence while encashing the forged cheques. The Bank as per written version filed in the respective complaints specifically denied the allegations of the Complainants that they were negligent while encashing respective cheques. According to them not only the signatures of the Complainants on cheques, but, serial numbers on the record were also verified before the cheques were honoured. They also sworn an affidavit in support of their such contention. Against this the Complainant wants to rely upon one expert opinion of Mr.Wagh, which is not supported by an affidavit. Besides that it is revealed that said expert did not compare the signature of the Complainant with the signature of the Complainant on the specimen signature card with the Bank. Therefore, Forum below rightly discarded said opinion. It is tried to be submitted on behalf of the Appellants that it is for the Bank to obtain expert opinion. We find no merit in such submission, because Complainant has to establish his case only. No other point is raised by the Appellant. Thus, considering the fact as established on record that the Bank had shown due diligence while honouring the disputed cheques, no deficiency in service on their part could be alleged . We are finding no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum below. Thus, we hold the appeals devoid of any substance and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal No.185/2007 stands dismissed. (ii) Appeal No.186/2007 stands dismissed. (iii) Appeal No.187/2007 stands dismissed. (iv) No order as to costs. | |
