19-01-2015 -  The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

        Hard the parties.

2.     The case of the Appellant/Complainant in short is that, in June 2007, it was observed that a sum of Rs. 7,48,836/- was debited from the bank account of the Appellant  firm on 30.5.2007. On enquiry by  letter dated 12.12.2007 under Right to Information Act, the Appellant was informed by the Bank-(O.P.1/R-1) that the said amount was debited against a cheque issued by the Appellant in favour of R-3- Jackson Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd., Amritsar. It transpired that the date in the said cheque was changed from 16.5.2006 to 16.5.2007 by making a forged signature on the date. R-3 seemed to have made such alteration and signature for its wrongful gain. The Appellant alleged that the Bank negligently debited the amount of the said cheque issued one year ago, causing great loss to the Complainant.

3.     According to the Bank prima-faice there was resemblance in the signature put after change of date in the cheque. The Bank was obliged to clear the said account payee cheque. The Appellant has not denied that the said cheque was issued in favour of R-3. The Appellant never informed the Bank to stop payment of the said cheque. The Appellant in connivance with R-3 has filed this case.

4.     According to R-3, it supplied medicine to the Appellant against which the said cheque was issued and there was no manipulation in the said cheque and therefore it was rightly cleared by the Bank.

5.     Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgement on various grounds. He submitted that that the learned Lower Forum did not consider the expert report dated 11.9.2010 from which it clearly appeared that the signature after cutting the date was forged. He further submitted that the Bank negligently cleared the said cheque on which forgery was apparent. He relied on certain judgements.

6.     Learned counsel appearing for the Bank supported the impugned judgement and pointed out to the doubtful conduct of the Appellant.

7.     Learned Counsel for R-3 also supported the impugned judgement. He pointed out that the Appellant did not seek any relief against R-3.

8.     After hearing the parties and going through the materials on the record and also the judgements relied by Mr. Jaiswal ,we find no  merit in this appeal.

10.   The finding of learned Lower Forum that the appellant is not a consumer is correct, so far as R-3 is concerned with whom the Appellant has business transactions, but if any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank is found, it could not be held that the Appellant is not a consumer, only because he was involved in commercial activity. However, we uphold the finding of the learned Lower Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

11.   It is true that the learned Lower Forum has not discussed about the expert report in so many words, but it appears that in view of the other attending circumstances, it was held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Admittedly the Appellant issued the cheque in question. It is surprising that if the Appellant learnt in June, 2007 that the said cheque was wrongfully cleared, it is not understood why no written protest was made by the Appellant for about 6 months. The Appellant asked for information under Right to Information Act only on 12.12.2007 .Then in paragraph -4(vii), of the complaint it is clearly stated that “It seems that the beneficiary of the said cheque i.e. the opp. Party no.3 has made such alteration and signature for its wrongful gain. The beneficiary of said cheque is being made a party in this case only for proper adjudication”. Further the Appellant alleged deficiency on the part of the Bank only and not against R-3. Relief was also claimed only against the Bank and not against R-3.

     Prima-facie there appears to be resemblance on the signatures in the cheque in question. It was an account payee cheque .The Bank cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service. The Appellant is trying to build up it’s case only on the basis on the expert report which is only an opinion. It is true that the Bank did not file objection to such opinion. But R- 3 also did not challenge it. Moreover, even if it is accepted that the signature on the date was forged, the Appellant itself alleged that such alteration seemed to have been made by R-3. There is nothing to show that the Appellant moved any court of law against R-3.

12.   The judgements relied on behalf of the Appellant are of no help in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the judegement passed in F.A. 344/10, this forum held deficiency in service on the part of the Bank as a bearer cheque of Rs.  3,91,000/- was encashed by the Bank without taking normal precaution by enquiring from the drawer of the cheque. Similarly in the other judgements, the Facts and circumstances were quite different from the present case. In the case reported in AIR 1967 SC 389, in a suit there was a finding that one of the signature on the cheque was forged. In the case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1603 again, in a suit it was found that the cheque was forged. In the case reported in              I (2004) CPJ 33 (J& K High Court), the fact that the cheques were stolen and were got encashed by committing forgery was not seriously disputed.

        In the result we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

           Ranchi,

           Dated:-19-01-2015