^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

Smt. Gautam Chaandni, aged 64 years daughter of Dr.S.K.Sharma, 24 Danehurst, Brent Lea, Brentford, Middx, TW8 8HX UK.

^{…..Appellant/Complainant}

1.      Chandigarh, through the Chief Executive Officer, and

2.      Chandigarh.

^{.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.}

BEFORE:

Argued by:^{Sh. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for theEr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.}

DEV RAJ, MEMBER

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case, are that a letter of satisfaction dated 11.2.2011 was prepared by the bank (HDFC Bank), copy of which is Annexure C-2, and the complainant was made to sign that letter confirming that consequent upon crediting of an amount of Rs.11,50000/- (Rs. Eleven lac fifty thousand only) in her account, her complaint was fully resolved to her satisfaction barring one transaction amounting to Rs.150000/- (Rs. One lac fifty thousand only). It was stated that the cash withdrawal done vide cheque No.32042 dated 22 April, 2009. It was also stated that letter of satisfaction was written by the complainant as she wanted to buy peace and was fully convinced that a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, will be refunded to her. The above money was a part and parcel of Rs.80 lacs which Mr.Rajinder Bhuteja, the then Manager and the agent of the bank had swindled causing a tremendous financial loss and huge stress to the complainant. It was further stated that the bank was duty bound and legally liable to indemnity and compensate the aggrieved complainant. It was further stated that as per Annexure C-3, Mr.Rajinder Bhuteja, the then HDFC Bank Manager was arrested by the Police because of the fraud committed by him, and news item was published in the Indian Express dated 17.04.2010. It was further stated that the complainant got Rs.11,50,000/- against the cheques, bearing her forged signatures, after the bank was fully satisfied that her signatures were forged and loss of money occasioned because of the fraud committed by Mr. Rajinder Bhuteja who also fraudulently applied for a PAN card for the purpose of looting her.    

3.                    In their written reply, it was stated that the complainant herself placed, on record, the cheque – Annexure C-5, which was the disputed instrument. 

4.                    In the rejoinder, the complainant stated that when all the cheques No. 30352, 30354, 32040 and 32042 as mentioned in Annexure C-2 or cheque No.032042 as referred in Annexure C-5 were not at all connected closely or even remotely with the complainant, the plea of getting her signatures compared was nothing but a calculated ruse to deny the complainant her dues. It was further stated that for dispensing truth, the Forum had inherent powers to examine any witness or any connected record and find out the truth. It was further stated that the cause of action arose on 11.2.2011 when the so called letter of satisfaction was drafted by the bank itself and the same was got signed from the complainant. Attention was drawn to a news item – Annexure C-10 downloaded from Google, in accordance with which, the complainant made a complaint to the S.S.P, Mohali against Mr.Rajinder Bhuteja, Branch Manager of HDFC Bank. It was further stated that the letter of satisfaction is contrary to Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19-A of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, written arguments filed on behalf of the respondents and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that when the respondents/Opposite Parties paid the complainant a sum of Rs.11.50 lacs why Bank should not pay the remaining amount of Rs.1.50 lacs.

10.                  On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, in the written arguments submitted that the claim was barred by limitation. It was further submitted that the alleged transaction pertained to cheque No.032042 dated 22.04.2009 for Rs.1,50,000/- and the complaint was filed on 02.11.2012 and as such the same was barred by time. It was further submitted that the letter dated 11.2.2011 did not create any cause of action. It was further submitted that the complainant herself placed on record the cheque – Annexure C-5, which was the disputed instrument. Gautam Chaandni Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd.’ before this Commission which was dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on the ground that the allegations of fraud and forgery could not be decided in the summary jurisdiction. It was further submitted that First Appeal No.400 of 2013, against the order passed by this Commission, was also dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 31.05.2013. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum is legal and valid and the same is liable to be upheld.

11.                  The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the cause of action arose to the complainant on 22.4.2009 when the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- against cheque No.032042 dated 22.04.2009 was made or on 2.11.2011 when the appellant/complainant executed letter (Annexure C-2). Clearly the payment against cheque No.032042 (Annexure C-5) was made on 22.4.2009 and, therefore, cause of action arose to the complainant on 22.4.2009. The complainant, could, thus, file the complaint within two years from 22.4.2009 i.e. up to 21.4.2011. As per the letter dated 11.2.2011 (Annexure C-2), the amount of Rs.11.50 Lacs was credited to the account of the appellant/complainant and regarding one transaction amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- withdrawn from the account of the appellant/complainant vide cheque No.032042 dated 22.4.2009, the issue remained pending. When the respondents/Opposite Parties compensated the appellant/complainant for a sum of Rs.11.50 Lacs alongwith interest totalling Rs.12,31,152.05Ps (Exhibit C-4), apparently, it did not do so with regard to one transaction, which required investigation. When the amount was withdrawn on 22.4.2009, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that cause of action accrued to the appellant/complainant not on 22.4.2009 but on the date when letter dated 11.2.2011 was signed. Thus, the complaint being barred by limitation is not maintainable.

12.                  Even, on merits, since the appellant/complainant is an educated person and it is also a fact, not disputed by her, that bank compensated her for a sum of Rs.11.50 Lacs alongwith interest totalling Rs.12,31,152.05Ps her contention that the execution of letter dated 11.2.2011 was contrary to Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19-A of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is devoid of merit. It is evident from record, that the appellant/complainant had alleged preparation of forged and false documents by one Mr. Rajinder Bhuteja and had lodged a complaint to the S.S.P. Mohali against Mr. Rajinder Bhuteja, Manager in ICICI Bank. A case of cheating, breach of trust and forgery under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC was registered. In respect of cheque dated 22.4.2009, the case of the appellant/complainant was that her signatures were forged. The respondents/Opposite Parties specifically stated that payment against the aforesaid cheque was made by the bank, in due course. They have also produced the report of Forensic Expert confirming that the signatures on the cheque dated 22.4.2009 completely matched with the standard signatures of the complainant, available in the Bank record. To prove to the contrary, the appellant/complainant could produce report of a handwriting and finger print expert but she failed to do so. Thus, on the face of cogent evidence produced by the respondents/Opposite Parties, the plea of appellant/ complainant has no substance.

13.                  The complainant has leveled allegations of fraud and forgery. There is merit in the contention of respondents/Opposite Parties that the same required detailed investigation and analysis of documents, examination and cross examination of the witnesses, which is only possible before a Civil Court. It is settled law that where there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties rightly placed reliance onGautam Chaandni Vs. ICICI Bank’, 

14.                  No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

15.                  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order, passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The same is liable to be upheld.

16.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order impugned, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.

17.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

26th December, 2013^.

^Sd/-

                                                                                               [DEV RAJ]

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.468 of 2013)

Argued by:^{Sh. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for theEr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.}

Dated the 26^th

ORDER

Ad