(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)

(1)               The appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31/08/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.33/2007, Basant Parvati C.H.S. Ltd. Vs.  The Manager, State Bank of India, passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mumbai.

(2)               It is a case of an alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opponent, State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘opponent bank’) by clearing a forged cheque valuing `70,000/- on 15/09/2004 purported to have issued under the signature of Secretary and Treasurer of the respondent/complainant society (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant society’).  After about three months, on the basis of report of the watchman, it is claimed that alleged fraud was surfaced and then the complainant society lodged a complaint with the opponent bank as well as with the police and subsequently filed this consumer complaint.  The forum allowed consumer complaint directing opponent bank to pay `70,000/- to the complainant society along with interest @9% p.a. from 15/04/2009 till its realization and `5,000/- towards costs.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, the bank preferred this appeal.

(3)               Heard.  In the instant case, the opponent bank has come with a positive statement that the cheque in question was a bearer cheque and when it was presented for encashment, the dealing official duly verified the signature and then was cleared the cheque.  If the signature on the cheque was found in order, they were under obligation to clear the cheque.  Hence, there is not deficiency in service on their part.  They have supported their case filing an affidavit of Mr.Prabhu, the then branch manager. 

(4)               An expert opinion of handwriting expert-cum-document examiner was sought in the instant case from Mr.Haresh T. Gajjar.  Said opinion is referred by both the parties.  The relevant part of it reads as under :-

“VII. Further I have observed that the disputed signature marked (Y-1) on the document marked X/1 without the aid of various optical instruments, under different illuminating sources and without the aid of photo enlargements of the disputed as well as Standard Signatures can be passed erroneously as genuine one in Rapid, Routine, Limited Cursory Examination, usually followed by the passing officer of various banks in India.”

(5)               Thus, it is revealed from the hand writing expert’s opinion that forgery could not be detected in normal course.  Therefore, the opinion of the hand writing expert corroborates the case of the bank that due diligence was shown while clearing the cheque.  If it is so, then, certainly, it cannot be said that while clearing the cheque in question, the official concerned acted negligently and failed to show due diligence vis-à-vis there is a deficiency in service on the part of his part and for which the Bank can be held vicariously liable. 

(6)               For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order.

ORDER

1)       Appeal is allowed.

2)       Impugned order dated 31/08/2010 passed in Consumer complaint        no.33/2007 by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal       Forum at Mumbai is set aside.

3)       Consumer complaint No.33/2007 stands dismissed.

4)       Under the circumstances, no order as to costs.