ORDER NO. 4 DT. 24.03.2011

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Revisionist through Mr. Netai Chandra Modak and OP through Mr. Manas Basu, Ld. Advocates, are present.  Heard both sides at length.  Judgement/order is passed as under :-

This Revisional Application is directed against the order dt. 31.8.10 passed by North 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum in C.C. No. 90/2010 thereby upholding the maintainability of the complaint.

In substance, the complainants have filed the complaint case by alleging that on 3.8.09 a cheque was drawn for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by the two signatories, one of which is one of the complainants.  It has been alleged therein that the signature of the other signatory was forged and on the basis of the said cheque the partnership account of the complainants was debited by a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.  The complaint has thus been filed by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Bank as they failed to detect the forgery of the second signature as appearing in the said cheque.

The OP/Bank after making appearance in the above complaint case filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the same on the ground that the question as raised in the complaint case being in relation to the forgery of the signature of the second signatory, the complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable.  The said petition has been dismissed by the impugned order.

The fact remains that the complainants are the custodians of the cheque book.  It has been admitted by the complainants themselves that one of the complainants had put in his signature in the cheque, which was drawn for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.  It has merely been alleged that the signature of the second signatory has been forged.  In these state of affairs where one of the signatories had admittedly drawn the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 50,000/- by putting his signature therein, it is primarily required to be proved whether the said second signature was in fact forged or not and if forged, who was behind such forgery.  Then the question would come for deficiency of service, if there be any.  At this stage, the question, therefore, being in the realm of the forensic examination of the signature of the second signatory appearing in the cheque in question, we are of the view that this complaint case does not fall within the parameters of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 inasmuch as no question as to the deficiency of service by the OP/Bank has arisen in this case. 

For the reasons as aforesaid we are of the view that the District Forum below has failed to appreciate the scope of the complaint case and has accordingly acted illegally by dismissing the petition as filed by the OP/Bank by challenging the maintainability of the above complaint case. 

The impugned order is thus set aside.  In view of the findings already made hereinabove, we are of the view that the complaint case is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same shall accordingly stand rejected as being not maintainable.  The Revisional Application is thus allowed.