The case of the complainant is on a better footing than the case cited by  us above. In this case, the original cheque leaf remained with the complainant and a sum of Rs 63,700/- was debited to his account on the basis of a counterfeit cheque leaf/ document.  There was no mandate from the side of the complainant  to pay. OP1 bank, therefore, committed deficiency in services to the complainant by not regularizing his   account despite having knowledge of the fact that the account was debited on the basis of a counterfeit document. We may also observe that if there was any negligence on the part of OP2 bank and if it had failed in its duty under the negotiable instrument act as has been mentioned in the letter of OP1 dated 6.9.2009 , reproduced above, OP1 bank may have recourse to its legal rights against OP2. However, OP1 bank could not have refused to regularize the account of the complainant by raising the plea of negligence on the part of OP2.    We, therefore, direct OP1 as under:-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 63,700/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of debit of the amount to the account of the complainant till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of pain and agony suffered by him.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The above amount shall be paid by OP1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which  OP1  shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to parties free of cost as per law.

          File be consigned to R/R.

        Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________