STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Punjab & Sind Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1980 (Act No.40 of 1980) with its Head Office at 21, Rajindera Place, New Delhi, and Branches amongst other place, one at Sector 36, Chandigarh, through Sh. Gurinder Pal Singh, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Office, Sector 36, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Institute of Personal Management & Industrial Relation Trust, through Sole Trustee Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, resident of House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.      
      

              ....Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the majority order dated 16.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OP to: -

(i)      credit a sum of Rs.11,000/- in the SB A/C No.1107 of the complainant along with the usual rate of interest on Savings Account from the date of withdrawal vide cheque bearing No.785241;

(ii)pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

(iii)pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation;

This order be complied with by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.41,000/- i.e. (Rs.11,000 + Rs.30,000)  along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.04.2010 till actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.             One Member of the District Forum, recorded the dissenting order to the extent of declining compensation and cost of litigation.

3.             The facts, in brief, are that, Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, being the sole trustee of the complainant trust, employed one Ms. Harpreet Kaur, as Computer Operator-cum-Accounts Clerk. In the ordinary course of business, and as a matter of convenience, Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, used to keep the cheque books of the said trust, as also the cheque book of his wife, in the office. In the month of April 2008, he found that some amount had been withdrawn, from the account of the complaint trust. He, thus, made enquiries, and came to know that Ms. Harpreet Kaur, aforesaid, forged his signatures, on those cheques, and withdrew the amount. The enquiries revealed that Ms. Harpreet Kaur, had stolen 33 cheques, out of which, she utilized one cheque bearing no.785241, and withdrew the amount of Rs.11,000/-, on 15.04.2008. It was stated that Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, being the sole trustee of the complainant trust, had given his specimen signatures, at the time of opening the saving bank account, with the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the employees of the Opposite Party, did not compare the signatures, on the cheque, aforesaid, with the specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, and cleared the same (cheque), despite the fact that there was a difference, in the said signatures. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, clearing of the aforesaid cheque, by the Opposite Party, and debiting of the amount, referred to above, to the account of the complainant trust, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, by it (Opposite Party). It was further stated that the Opposite Party was, many a time, asked to credit the amount of the cheque, to the account of the complainant trust, pay compensation for mental and physical harassment, and cost of litigation, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming the refund of amount of Rs.11,000/-, of the cheque wrongly encashed, due to the negligence of the Opposite Party; Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.             The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that since the allegations of fraud and fabrication, were leveled by the complainant trust, the same could not be decided by the Consumer Fora, in summary proceedings, and only the Civil Court could properly determine the same. It was further pleaded that, as such, the Consumer Fora, had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was, however, admitted that the complainant trust was having its saving bank account with the Opposite Party, as mentioned, in the complaint. It was also admitted that Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, being the sole trustee of the complainant trust, had given his specimen signatures, at the time of opening the saving bank account, in the name of the complainant. It was stated that the signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, on the cheque, in question, were duly tallied, with his specimen signatures, on the Account Opening Form, and, only thereafter, the cheque, was encashed. It was further stated that Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, had duly authorized Ms. Harpreet Kaur, to get the cheques, encashed from the Opposite Party. It was further stated that since the signatures on the cheque, aforesaid, of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, were similar to his specimen signatures, on the Account Opening Form, after taking due care and caution, the said cheque was cleared. It was further stated that, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

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, came to the conclusion, that it had Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further held by the District Forum, that since it was proved, from the expert evidence, that the signatures on the cheque, in question, did not tally with the standard signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service.

7.             Ultimately the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.          The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that since the allegations of forgery and fabrication, were leveled by the complainant trust, the same could not be decided by the Consumer Fora, in summary proceedings. He further submitted that since the detailed evidence was required for proving the factum of forgery and fabrication, only the Civil Court, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, in the complaint, it was stated that Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Computer-cum-Accounts Clerk, aforesaid, forged the signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, on the cheque, in question, and withdrew the amount, from its account. The question arises, as to whether, mere allegations, leveled in the complaint, could be said to be sufficient, to oust the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The Consumer Foras, are established with the sole object to provide speedy, inexpensive and affordable redressal of the grievances of the Consumers. It may be stated here, that Section 3 of the Act, provides an additional remedy. In the complaint, it was averred by the complainant, that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, as it encashed the cheque, in question, presented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, aforesaid, without properly verifying the signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, its sole trustee, with his specimen signatures, which on the other hand, had been forged by her (Mr. Harpreet Kaur). In J.J. Merchant (Dr.) V. Shrinath Chaturvedi, IV (2002) SLT 714 =III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) =2002 CTJ 757 (SC) (CP), relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent, the Hon`ble Supreme Court, held as under:-

“This submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, long-drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers, and that should not be curtailed, on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done, when some questions of fact are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards”.

11.          In CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. V. Development Credit Bank Ltd. V (2003) SLT 185=III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC)=2003 CTJ 84 (SC) (CP), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“It cannot be denied that Fora at the National Level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. These Foras have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Foras is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure, which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because reading of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved”.

12.          In Lalco Enterprises Vs. Union Bank Of India, III (2003) CPJ 42 (NC) the allegations were that 25 cheques, which had forged signatures of the account holder, were encashed by the Bank, and the amount was debited to the account of the account holder. The complainant, claimed the amount of cheques, which had been debited to the account of the account holder. On consideration of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Lalco Enterprises case(supra), dismissed the Revision Petition, by observing as under:-

“The question that arose before the District Forum was about the authenticity of the signatures of the withdrawal of the cheques. It was difficult for District Forum to go into the question of genuine signatures on each and every cheque and to get the report from the handwriting expert from either side. However, District Forum found that there was certainly discrepancy of 2 cheques and amount of those cheques was Rs. 18,320/-. It was on this account that complaint was partly allowed and Bank was directed to pay Rs. 18,320/- with interest therein @ 15% p.a. and Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission where the appeal was dismissed. Still feeling aggrieved, complainant has come before us. After examining the whole aspect of the matter, we feel that District Forum was rather generous to the complainant that had awarded the amount of two cheques. Since the Bank is not before us, we do not say anything on this subject. We do not find it a case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Revision Petition is dismissed”.

13.          Needless to mention here, that the District Forums, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , have been entertaining complaints, against the banks, on the allegations, that the latter have committed deficiency, in service, by encashing forged cheques and making payment of such cheques, not containing the signatures of the account holder or the cheque book, having been issued by the bank, on the basis of unauthorized requisition slips. In several cases, the allegation was that, this was done, with the connivance of the Staff member(s) of the bank and/or the account holder. In some cases, criminal complaints were also lodged with the Police, which registered cases, and took up the investigation. In such cases, despite there being the allegations of fraud, forgery, cheating or conspiracy, the Consumer Foras were not dissuaded from entertaining the complaints and did not relegate the complainants to the Civil Court, merely because allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating were made. Merely because, in a complaint, based on the defect in goods or deficiency, in service, the Opposite Party, makes allegations of fraud, forgery or some other criminal act, in the process, it does not mean that the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, should automatically be ousted, in entertaining and dealing with such complaints. Besides, the standard of proof, required in a complaint, before the Consumer Fora, and that is required to establish the commission of criminal offence(s) before a Criminal Court, is not the same. While a complaint before the Consumer Fora, can be answered, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, the Criminal Court would insist on much stricter proof, to hold any person guilty of criminal charge. It may also be noted here that the outcome of the two actions, before the two Foras, is not dependent upon the findings of each other. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank, I (2010) CPJ 312 (NC). The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.  Mere fact, that the allegations of fraud and fabrication were levelled by the complainant trust, did not mean that the Consumer Fora, was not competent to entertain and decide the complaint. According to Section 13(4) of the Act, powers of Civil Court, in the matters, listed therein, are conferred upon the Consumer Foras. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that since the allegations of forgery and fabrication had been leveled, and that the detailed evidence was required to be led, the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, to decide the complaint was ousted under the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.  

14.          The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on Satish Chand Gosian & Anr. Vs. Canara Bank, II (2009) CPJ 31 and Raghuvir Singh, Vs. Branch Head, Axis Bank and another, 2010(4) CLT 134, in support of his contention, that when the allegations of fraud and fabrication, are leveled in the complaint, then the same (complaint), could not be decided by the Consumer Fora, as it was required to adopt summary procedure, and, on the other hand, it (Consumer Fora) should relegate the parties, to the Civil Court, for adjudication of the dispute. The facts of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Even, both the aforesaid cases were decided by this Commission. Any principle, of law, laid down, in the cases, referred to, in this paragraph, decided by this Commission, which is contrary to the principle of law, laid down, in J.J. Merchant (Dr.) and CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd`s cases (supra)  decided by the Apex Court, and Lalco Enterprises case (supra), decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, shall not hold the field.  In this view of the matter, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the cases, referred to, in this paragraph. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

15.          Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, in his affidavit, by way of evidence, supported the averments contained in the complaint. Not only this, a criminal case of forgery was registered against Ms. Harpreet Kaur, by the Police. During the course of that criminal case, the standard signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, were obtained by the Investigating Officer. The questioned signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, on the cheque, which, in dispute, in the instant case, were compared with his standard signatures and Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, submitted his report, copy whereof is CW-2/G. Not only this, Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, appeared as CW2, and was examined by the District Forum. In his statement dated 3.10.2011, before the District Forum, he stated that he compared the disputed signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, on the cheque, with his standard signatures. He further stated that the disputed signatures, on the cheque, (CW-2/A), did not tally with the standard signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust.  The report of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, who appeared before the District Forum, is duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, which was submitted by him, by way of evidence. The report CW-2/G of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, is a detailed one, which is based on cogent & convincing data,  material and reasoning. There was no reason, on the part of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, to favour any party, he, being a Govt. Servant and disinterested in the parties. The District Forum, was thus, right in relying upon the evidence, and report of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, coupled with the evidence of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, in coming to the conclusion, that signatures on the cheque, in question, were not of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, but, were forged by Ms. Harpreet Kaur. The District Forum was also right in coming to the conclusion, that the bank Officials, did not properly compare the questioned signatures, on the cheque, in dispute, with the specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust,  and, thus, committed negligence, in encashing the same. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

16.          The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the disputed signatures, on the cheque, in question, were not compared by Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, with the specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, in possession of the Bank, and, as such, his report could not be relied upon. Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents during the course of his cross-examination, no doubt, stated that he did not compare the disputed signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, on the cheque, in question, with his specimen signatures. Infact, the original specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, which were in possession of the Opposite Party, were not supplied to him, or to Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents. When after comparison of the disputed signatures, on the cheque, in question, with the standard signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, which were in existence in the criminal file, brought by the Ahlmad of the District Courts, Chandigarh, before the District Forum, the Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned documents, came to the conclusion, that the same were not written by one and the same person, then, the onus lay upon the Opposite Party, to move an application, for comparison of the said signatures, with the specimen signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, by another independent expert. No such application was moved by the Opposite Party, before the District Forum, for undertaking the exercise, in that regard. Once the initial onus was discharged by Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, by proving that the disputed signatures on the cheque, in question, did not relate to him, then it was for the Opposite Party, to rebut the same. The Opposite Party, only supplied the photocopy of the specimen signatures, which is on the District Forum file, at page 114. Comparison could not be made with the photo impression of the signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, with his questioned signatures. The mere fact, that the questioned signatures  of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, were not compared with his specimen signatures, as the same, in original, were not supplied by the Opposite Party, to him, did not, in any way, cast doubt, on the report Annexure CW-2/G. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

17.          No evidence was produced, on the record, to show that there was a variation, between the disputed signatures of Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, the sole trustee of the complainant trust, obtained by the Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation of the criminal case, lodged against Ms. Harpreet Kaur, and, his specimen signatures. No doubt, there can be some variation in the signatures of a person, if he appends the same, after the lapse of a considerable period of time, from the date, when he appended his specimen signatures, yet, the Examiner of Questioned Documents, while comparing the disputed signatures, with the specimen signatures or standard signatures of a person, takes into consideration various factors. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

18.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant, which is a trust, and, as such, a Juristic person can be granted compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment or not. Only the living person is capable of suffering mental agony and physical harassment. The trust, being a Juristic person, cannot suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was wrong, in awarding compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, namely “Institute of Personal Management & Industrial Relation Trust”. The findings of the District Forum, awarding compensation, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, which is a trust, therefore, being perverse and illegal, are liable to be set aside.

19.          The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was also wrong, in granting interest @18% p.a., in default of compliance of the order within the stipulated period. It could certainly be said to be on the higher side. In our considered opinion, if interest @12%, is granted, that would be just, fair and reasonable. The order of the District Forum, granting interest @18% p.a., is modified, and instead, interest @12% p.a., is granted.

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

21.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:-

(i)                  The direction of the District Forum awarding Rs.30,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, is set aside.

(ii)         Interest @18% P.A., in default of compliance of its order, within the stipulated period, awarded by the District Forum, is reduced to 12% P.A.

(iii)        The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, by its majority order, shall remain intact.

22.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced.

October 1, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg