Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2824 of 1999

Smt. Krishna Hajela w/o Late Shri C.P. Hajela,

G-599, Kamla Nagar, Agra.                                 …Appellant.

Versus

1- Canara Bank, Kamla Nagar, Agra

    through Branch Manager.     

2- Branch Manager, Canara Bank,

    Kamla Nagar, Agra.                                   .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

Date   22.7.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This appeal has been preferred by Smt. Krishna Hajela under section 15 read with section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Agra in complaint case no.689 of 1994.

          The grounds of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment and order is erroneous, legally perverse, based on assumptions and presumptions, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, hence liable to be set aside. The entire findings of the impugned judgment and order are without appreciation of facts and law. The opposite parties are negligent in rendering deficient services with regard to banking facilities by encashing the cheque which was not issued nor signed by the appellant, hence depriving the complainant with huge amount of Rs.55600.00 which was got encashed only due to  wrongful and collusive acts of  the opposite party no.2 with its staff. The appellant is a widow and senior citizen. The

(2)

respondents acted in making payment of forged cheque  which was not issued and signed by the complainant and the respondent ought to have compared the signature  with the specimen signature but the forgery on the part of the bank, its manager and its staff was apparent in the circumstances, hence, the ld. Forum ought to have allowed the complaint.

          The handwriting expert’s opinion was sought by the respondents which after great efforts was came to the knowledge who also confirmed about the forged signatures, hence in the light of the said report also, the ld. Forum failed to take into consideration the same and by virtue of this report also ought to have allowed the complaint, but dismissed the same only on the ground that it is to be tried before civil court and did not enter into the merits of the case. The ld. Forum had sufficient jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. There were no occasion in the circumstances for the appellant to issue any cheque no.7812810 for Rs.55600.00 being forged cheque, as the complainant had already issued two chequs 7812902-03 for Rs. 23680.00 and Rs.2560.00 in favour of the UTI and that too of 27.8.1993 which were deliberately not honoured for the reasons best known to the respondent no.2. The Bank had obtained the signatures on the cheque of appellant in dispute and of also one  Vikram Saxena for presented before handwriting expert and the same has been made confirmed by handwriting expert that the cheque’s signature was a forged one. The case in question can be well tried and it was not required to have any elaborate evidence as held, as the expert opinion report was also before the Forum and thus, no further evidence was required and the complaint ought to have decided on merits.

(3)

The impugned judgment is wholly illegal and the ld. Forum did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The appellant respectfully prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant. None appeared from the respondent’s side.

In this matter, two important questions which are to be taken into consideration are that, that the cheque-book issued to the complainant and under what circumstances one leaf of cheque-book was given to the person who withdrew the said amount from the bank.

We have perused the judgment and order of the ld. District Forum in which the Forum has said that as to how one leaf of the cheque-book came in the possession of the staff of the bank. The complainant argued before the forum that blank cheque was taken by someone from her cheque-book. The custodian of the cheque-book is the account holder, it is his/her duty to keep the cheque-book in safe custody. For the sake of argument, if it is supposed that someone has taken one leaf from her cheque-book, it should have been communicated the bank and the bank be requested to stop payment of that particular cheque but it has not been done. There is no evidence that the bank employee has taken a leaf from her cheque-book because in bank, only filled cheque is presented for payment and not cheque-book, so there was no opportunity for the bank employees to tear a leaf from that cheque-book. The opposite parties have specifically argued that the cheque was brought by her nephew and presented for payment. It is also argued that her nephew Vikram Saxena also withdrew Rs.600.00 from her bank

(4)

account no.10137 on the same day just immediately after it,  he withdrew the payment of Rs.55600.00 (disputed cheque) from the account of the complainant.

          From all the circumstances, it is clear that the complainant failed to establish that somebody took one leaf from  her cheque-book without her knowledge and submitted it before the bank for payment. If her nephew has presented a cheque on the same day and thereafter, he also presented the disputed cheque, it is clear that on that day two cheques were produced before the bank for payment by same person, who was nephew of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the bank and if the complainant wants to recover the amount or if she alleges the charge of forgery against her nephew, she can very well seek the remedy before the civil court. Thus, we find there is no ground of appeal in this case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

          Appeal is dismissed.

          Costs on the parties.

          Let the record be consigned.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 3

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 3