PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 308/2008 – Punjab National Bank Vs. Smt. Meena by which, appeal was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent is having a joint saving account No. 011026 with her husband Sh. Kiran Pal Maan in Nangloi, Delhi, Branch of Punjab National Bank-OP-Petitioner. Since the opening of the account the complainant got issued only two cheque books in their name from the OP bank, one cheque book bearing No. 278851 to 278860 and other cheque book bearing No. 658041 to 658060. The cheque book bearing No. 278851 to 278860 had already been exhausted by the complainant and the complainant is using the cheque book containing the serial No. 658041 to 658060 and apart from these cheque books sometimes the complainant used the loose cheque also issued by the OP bank from time to time proper record for the same is kept by the bank and sometimes complainant used withdrawal forms also. These withdrawal forms could only be used when the customer visits the branch in person and have the pass book of the account with him/her. On 22.03.2004 the complainant was having a credit balance of Rs. 1,20,392.58/- but when on 25.03.2004 complainant went to withdraw Rs. 1,20,000/- from her said account through a withdrawal slip, she was shocked when the official of the OP bank refused to pay the said amount on the ground that there was no sufficient funds in the account to make the payment. The complainant told the official that she had withdrawn Rs. 1,30,000/- on 22.03.2004 and after withdrawal of the amount the left out balance in her account was Rs. 1,20,392.58/-. Thereafter enquiry was made and it was revealed by the official of the OP bank that one Ms. Bimla have withdrawn the payment of Rs. 1,18,500/- from the account on 23.03.2004 on the strength of a cheque bearing No. 447921 but the complainant explained that she had not given any such cheque to any person in the name of Ms. Bimla, neither she had any cheque book bearing leaf No. 447921 because she had never been issued a cheque of this series. The complainant made many request to the OP bank to refund the payment of Rs. 1,18,500/- made to Ms. Bimla because that amount has been withdrawn by someone due to negligence of the bank official but was of no avail. The complainant adopted various course for lodging the FIR and finally succeeded in getting the FIR registered on the basis of directions issued by the Honble High Court of Delhi for lodging the FIR. Inspite of letters written to the OP, they never took any steps for getting the matter investigated and lodging the FIR. On not getting his amount of Rs. 1,18,500/- credited back into their account by the bank the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. 3. OP resisted complaint and denied all the allegations. It was admitted that the complainant along with her husband is having a joint account no. 011026. On 22.3.2004, the complainant took payment of Rs.1,30,000/- through a withdrawal slip accompanied by a passbook. On the same day the complainant gave the requisition slip and requested for issue of a cheque book and after verifying the signatures of the complainant as per record, the OP issued the cheque book bearing cheque nos. 447921 to 447940 against the signatures of the complainant on the cheque book issue register. On 23.01.2004 the first cheque of the above said cheque book bearing no. 447921 favouring Smt. Bimla Devi for Rs.1,18,500/- was issued by the complainant. It was presented at the counter and the said cheque was duly signed by the complainant as well as by the other joint account holder. The signatures were tallied with that of specimen signatures on record and the cheque was cleared. The disputed signatures as well as the admitted signatures of the complainant are the same as per the report of the handwriting expert. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 2 to pay Rs. 1,18,500/- and damages of Rs.50,000/- with 9% p.a. interest along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of complaint being barred by limitation, learned District Forum allowed complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal without considering question of limitation and without discussing handwriting expert’s opinion; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed or matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for consideration of aforesaid points. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed that disputed cheque was encashed on 23.3.2004 which came to the knowledge of complainant on 25.3.2004 and complaint was filed on 27.6.2006. Learned Fora below has not considered how complaint was within limitation. 7. Expert opinion given by Mr. V.C. Mishra – Forensic Expert regarding handwriting on disputed cheque is on record which has not been considered by learned State Commission and only observed that Commission in several cases held that report of handwriting expert could not be taken as conclusive evidence. Learned State Commission has not considered expert’s opinion report and has not discarded it and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, appeal should not have been dismissed. As both points were material for disposal of appeal, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission to consider aforesaid aspects. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 308/2008 – Punjab National Bank Vs. Smt. Meena is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal afresh in the light of aforesaid observations after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 9. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 17.4.2017. |
