BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                                                    O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2005/155

   Date of filing :  14/07/2005                                                                                                     

                                                                           Date of Order:  07/09/2017

Mrs. Bina Ramchandani,

Proprietress, Natneil Travels,

Office at – White Hall, Mezzanine Floor A,

(Next to Shalimar Hotel), Kemps Corner,

Mumbai – 400 0 36.                                            ….. Complainant.    

  V/s.

1.Canara Bank,

Through Branch Manager,

Kemps Corner Branch,  

Mumbai – 400 036.               

2. Neelam Rasik Parmar,

At present R/at – Breach Candy House,

Room No.2, Ground Floor,

B.D. Road, Breach Candy,

Mumbai – 400 025.                                                       ….. Opposite Party

                    Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod                 :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap                   :   Hon’ble Member

Appearance:  Complainant              –        Adv. Shri. Patwardhan

                       For Opponent No. 1 -        Adv. Shri. Hussen

                       Opponent No. 2         -        Ex-parte    

// J U D G M E N T //

PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

The brief facts of the  complaint is that the Complainant is a propritress of Natneli Travels, deals in travel related services including insurance of  tickets on behalf of various  International Airlines  and the Complainant is  member of IATA.  The Opponent No. 1 is a Nationalized Bank and the Complainant is having Account in the above said Bank at Kemps Corner  Branch. In the year 2001, one employee of the Complainant had ex-facie forged the Complainant’s signature on her cheque on Current Account No. 11129 and encashed the same.  The Complainant discovered the forgery and confronted the Opponent Bank.  Infact due to the negligence of the Opponent No.1 all forged cheques were encashed  and therefore there  was no suspicion on the Opponent No.2.  On 3/6/2004,  the Complainant received Fax from IATA saying that the  fortnightly cheque for Rs. 6,88,230/- had been returned for want of funds and that a draft needed to be sent by 10.30 A.M. on the same day.  The Complainant was shocked to receive such message, then the Complainant immediately contacted the Branch Manager.  The Opponent No. 1 asking him on what  authority had he returned the cheque. The Complainant was informed by the Opponent No.1 that the cheque has been returned on the instruction of the opponent No.2 and the Opponent No.2 had got the cheque purportedly signed by the Complainant in order to make a Draft of the requisite amount.  The Complainant was shocked to receive this information as no such cheque had been signed by her and went to the Opponent No.1 with the Opponent No.2.  It was apparent that the Complainant’s signature was forged and that the same did not tally with the records of the Bank.  It is further submitted that the complaint was registered with the local police station.  In the investigation carried out by the police it was found that all the cheques were forged by the Opponent No.2 and thereby the Complainant causing financial loss of Rs. 6,30,000/-  and due to the negligence of the Opponent No.1 as they have not appropriately verified the signature of the Complainant,  Police Case No. 40/04 has been filed  against the Opponent No. 2 at Girgaon Court.  The Opponent No.2 has forged total (73) cheques with signature of the Complainant.  Therefore, this complaint is filed and prayed that  the Opponent No. 1 shall pay Rs.5,70,000/-  with interest @15% p.a. from 3/6/2004 till the date of filing of the complaint and till its realization and also claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental torture and Rs.25,000/- for cost of the proceedings.

                   To support  her contention, the Complainant has filed her affidavit evidence, written arguments also orally argued.  Also cited the case-laws in her favour.

(2)               To revert allegations, the Opponent No.1 has denied all the allegations against the Opponent No.1 in toto.     It is further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the transactions are commercial nature.  It is further submitted that there is no any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent No.1.  It is further submitted  that as all those cheque books are signed by the Complainant, were in the custody of the Opponent No.2.  All signatures  were tallied from the record of specimen signature of the Complainant.  The criminal case  is already been against the Opponent No.2 for forgery and other offences. 

To support these facts,  submitted written evidence written arguments oral arguments and also case- laws.

(3)               The Opponent No. 2 is absent.

(4)               From the above facts, following points arose for our determination 

(5)               From the contents of the complaint, she herself admitted that her Account related to the travel agency and from that account, cheques were forged by her employee i.e. the Opponent No.2.  The said cheques were dishonoured by the Opponent No.1, which was issued by the Complainant in favour of IATA and therefore, she found that the cheques were encashed in favour of the Opponent No.2 as she has produced several cheques by similar signature of the Complainant.  It is further whisper from the facts that handwriting expert report also not confirmed that there is a difference between the Complainant’s original signature which is signed as sample signature in the Bank and cheque signature which are encashed and therefore we do not find any substance in the allegation that there is negligence on the part of the Opponent No.1 or unfair trade practice.  The case-laws cited and relied by the Complainant are not applicable.  The  ratio of the case-laws and facts of the present case are different.

(6)               From the above facts, documents on record, we came to the conclusion that we do not find any substance in the present case that there is a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent.  We found substance that considering facts of the case, it appears that there is a commercial transaction and therefore, on that count also this Forum has no jurisdiction. Hence we do not find any substance in the complaint, complaint deserved to be dismissed.     

(7)               Hence the following order :

//O R D E R//

1. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. Parties to bear their own costs.

3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

       sd/-xxx                                                           sd/-xxx

 (Shri. S.R. Sanap)                                       (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

  Hon’ble  Member                                       Hon’ble President

Note:-  As the pleadings, affidavit, documents, written arguments of the parties are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.

vns