REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 2479 of 2008 is against the final order and judgment dated 1st February 2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (he State Commission in First Appeal no. 550 of 2007. The brief facts of the case as given by the respondent/complainant are as follows: The respondent is a practicing lawyer and has been availing the services of the petitioner/ OP Bank right from the inception of his practice/ profession vide his S B Account no. 1802. The service of the petitioner which is a nationalised institution, have been (in totality) reasonably up to the mark with the exception of 3 stray unfortunate incidents (out of respondent seven cheques) whereon his signatures were forged and were issued in three different names by some unknown culprit/ mischief monger with the aid and abetment of his court clerk Pooran Chandra Pant on the one side joined by some bank staff on the other side who actively connived, collaborated/ colluded in the matter of fraudulent withdrawal of total of Rs.40,000/- from the respondent aforesaid S B Account. Respondent first cheque bearing no. 557529 dated 05.08.2002 for Rs.10,000/- purported to have been issued in fictitious/ imaginary name of one Rajesh Kumar with the forged signature of the respondent beneath it were got encashed the same day from the Bank vide its token no. 132. The respondent second cheque bearing no. 557532 dated 14.08.2002 for Rs.10,000/- was issued in the name of one Rajbir Singh, again with the forged signatures of the respondent beneath it, was got encashed the same day vide its token no. 192. The respondent third cheque bearing no. 618832 dated 23.07.2003 for Rs.20,000/- was issued in the name of one Gopal Singh against, with the forged signatures of the respondent beneath it, was got encashed the same day vide its token no. 1834. Intimation of the first stop payment advice for the remaining 2 uncashed cheques had been given on 26.08.2002 to the petitioner Bank. Whereas intimation of the second stop payment advice for the remaining two uncashed cheques was made on 24.07.2003 to the petitioner Bank. In the first incident a complaint was made only to the petitioner Bank with a written request to compensate the respondent for the loss of Rs.20,000/- suffered by him due to lack of its vigilance and carelessness in the matter of properly tallying and comparing the signatures appended beneath the said two forged cheques. The proceeds of these three cheques seemingly have been collected by one and the same individual on the respective dates as is amply evident from the style of the signing done by the bearer at the back of the three cheques. The noteworthy point in this context is that during this period the computer network system of the petitioner Bank was non-functional and thus the respondent routine of getting his passbook update on weekly basis with the debit-credit entries was disturbed and disrupted and as a consequences thereof the culprit/ offender took advantage of the situation and got all the three cheques encashed on different dates/ occasions. In essence, this kind of loss suffered by the respondent is attributable to laring Deficiency in Serviceon the part of the petitioner Bank in the following manners inter alia others: Firstly, by not doing the posting job of the passbook due to the defects in the petitioner computer system. Secondly, the laches in the form of hastily, heedlessly and negligently verifying tallying/ comparing the forged signatures on the said three cheques. Thirdly, by not looking at the signatures made on the back of the first cheque dated 05.08.2002 where the bearer has signed as R Singh on the back thereof instead of Rajesh Kumar and the second cheque dated 14.08.2002 also carrying the signature in the handwriting of the same individual as R Singh on the back thereof while the cheque had been issued in the name of Rajiv Singh and in the third case even though the signatures were that of the bearer on the back of the cheque but the handwriting shows that the signatory had been one and the same individual as is apparent to the naked eye. In their reply, the petitioner/ OP 1 Bank have denied the allegations made in the complaint. They have stated that the respondent nowhere in his FIR and other communication to the police made any allegation against the petitioner Bank and its staff members. His needle of suspicion centres around his own staff members, i.e., his clerk and driver. This itself amounts an admission by the respondent that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Bank and the loss if any is because of vicarious liability for the negligence on the part of respondent himself. The complaint is hopelessly time barred and no plausible explanation has been given to account for inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The respondent has lodged a complaint with the police on 24.07.2003 whereas he has filed the present complaint as an after thought and on account of fall out of the FIR. The payment of all the cheques which are uncrossed and bearer were made in due course without negligence to the holder of the cheques in the circumstances which to the judgment of the official of the petitioner Bank did not reveal any reasonable doubt particularly about the genuiness of the cheque. There was not an iota of doubt that the holder of the cheque was not entitled to payment thereof. The loss if any is not because of the alleged deficiency in service but because of negligence on the part of the respondent in not keeping his cheque book in lock and key and or safe custody and over reliance/ dependence on his own driver and clerk. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi (he District Forum vide order dated 13.06.2007 has stated that he opinion is based on the examination made from the Photostat of the documents and not from the original documents. The opinion is subjected to confirmation after the examination from the original documents. The complainant is also negligent is suffering loss. He suffered fraud in the year 2002. Instead of taking care and caution, he kept the pass book unlocked in his car and in possession of his clerk. The conduct of complainant is like maxim olenti non fit injuria His careless attitude caused loss to him. A banker is not supposed to compare the signature of account holder on the cheque with the same technique is adopted by CFSL. The complainant did not care to be vigilant The District Forum did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Bank. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission differed with the findings of the District Forum and stated that t is settled principle that every skilled person has to be trusted in his art and no court can replace the opinion by its own opinion even by comparing the admitted and disputed signatures. Unless and until the reports of the expert are so diametrically opposite and suffer from such irreconcilable contradictions no different opinion can be framed. Once the District Forum was equipped with two reports of handwriting expert it was not open to it to introduce its own opinion by stepping into the shoes of an expert. Another observation of the District Forum which also suffers from inherent infirmity is that the respondent who had suffered a fraud in the year 2002 should have kept the pass book and cheque book under lock and key and not in his car in the possession of his clerk and therefore his conduct is that of olenti non fit injuriaand the careless attitude caused loss to him. Such an observation was not at all apt in the given facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the person who forged the signature is none but his own clerk. In ordinary course of business and transactions of the Bank the officials of the Bank sitting at the counter are not supposed to avail the service of handwriting expert in each and every case. But at the same time they are required to take sufficient precaution and exercise utmost care in encashing cheque which are bearer or self and since in the instant case the petitioner bank did not take care to exercise sufficient care the caution as is demonstrated from the two reports of the handwriting expert petitioner bank has to be held guilt for deficiency in service. Since there was no malafide intention nor was there only conspiracy of the bank officials, we hold the petitioner bank guilt for limited deficiency in service to the aforesaid extent and deem that compensation of Rs.20,000/- besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order with the directions respondent/ appellant to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation Hence, this present revision petition. The main ground for the revision petition are that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the facts regarding day to day transaction of the bank is ordinary course of business and the official staff of the bank who are sitting at the bank counter are not handwriting expert to avail these type of service to check every stroke, turns, curvature, place of joining letter of the bearer cheque in normal course of day. It is pertinent to mention that all the signature of the cheques where duly tallied/ verified from the specimen of the record of the customers. For that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the facts that the negligence in the part of the respondent for loss of his blank cheque twice not once. He did not keep his cheque in a secured place. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and gone through the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Bank drew our attention to the fact that the complaint before the District Forum ought to have been dismissed on limitation. He drew our attention to paragraph 2 of the complaint wherein three cheques had been encashed by some unknown culprit/ mischief monger with the aid and abetment of his court clerk Pooran Chandra Pant. Cheque bearing no. 557529 dated 05.08.2002 for Rs.10,000/-, the second cheque bearing no. 557532 dated 14.08.2002 for Rs.10,000/- and the third cheque bearing no. 618832 dated 23.07.2003 for Rs.20,000/-. Intimation of the first stop payment advice for the remaining two uncashed cheques had been given on 26.08.2002 to the petitioner, whereas intimation of second stop payment advice for the remaining two uncashed cheques was made on 24.07.2003. However, the complaint was filed after two years from 24.07.2003 on 17.08.2005, hence, it is time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that respondent had also not filed the condonation of delay application along with the complaint. He drew our attention to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dr V N Shrikhande vs Mrs Anita Sena Fernandes AIR 2011 Supreme Court 212, wherein the Apex Court considered whether the Consumer Forum established under the Act can refuse to admit the complaint on the ground that the same is barred by time. The decision of this question depends on the interpretation of sections 12(1), (3), (4), 18, 22 and 24 A of the Act. The Apex court held that n other words, the Consumer Forums do not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24 A (2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under section 24 A (I). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under section 24 A (2). The Consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India vs B S Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 : (AIR 2009 SC 2210) and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company vs National Insurance Company and Another (2009) 7 SCc 768 : (2010 AIR SCW 2528) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the respondent in his complaint has alleged that signatures were forged on the cheques and money was withdrawn from his account. Counsel for the petitioner have cited two cases of National Commission (Bright Transport Co. vs Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd - II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), decided on 12.01.2012 and Prempreet Textiles Industries Ltd., vs Bank of Baroda and Ors. III (2006) CPJ 218 (NC) decided on 15.05.2006) and one case pertaining to Delhi State Commission (Srikrishan Dass vs Dena Bank I (2003) CPJ 276 decided on 08.07.2002). In the case of Bright Transport Co. (Supra) the National Commission has held that e must consider the question whether this Commission in exercise of its summary jurisdiction would be able to adjudicate all those issues arising on the complaint in an effective manner. If this Commission ventures to do it, it may have to record the evidence of all those persons whose evidence was collected by the CBI. It is only after detailed examination and cross examination of those witnesses and the documentary evidence i.e. voluminous record involved in the said bank transactions that the Commission may perhaps be able to adjudicate on the said question. We have, therefore no hesitation to hold that the complaint indeed raises very complicated question of facts and law which can only be answered by a regular Civil Court and the complainants should be relegated to the Civil Court to work out their remedy for the entire claim made by them in the present complaint or this Commission can decide upon the claim in regard to which there is no dispute between the parties. It also appears to us that filing of present complaints before this Commission are nothing but an attempt to misuse the jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on the court fee payable in a suit before the Civil Court. Having considered the matter from different angles and having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainants, we are of the view that these consumer complaints are not maintainable before this Commission. However, the complainants shall be free to work out its remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate court / Tribunal. With these observations, the consumer complaints are dismissed In the case of Srikrishan Das (Supra), the State Commission has held that f the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed by us that the complaint filed by the complainant before this Commission requires adjudication in respect of complicated and complex questions of fact, such as whether in fact on the basis of forged cheque the amount in question has been fraudulently withdrawn from the account of the complainant and whether there was any connivance/ conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the complainant by the staff members of the Bank. The above complex and complicated questions, which require taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary/ expert evidence also and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence, decidedly cannot be adjudicated upon satisfactorily by a redressal agency, established under the Act. In view of the position explained above, the present complaint filed by the complainant is directed to be dismissed in limine. However, the complainant is given the liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievances being raised by the complainant in the present complaint, as the complainant may be advised Counsel for the petitioner also argued that it was for the respondent to keep his cheque book under lock and key and it was indeed surprising that his staff could access his cheque book and allegedly forged the signature to withdraw Rs.40,000/- on no less than three occasions. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the case of Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd., (Supra) have stated that t was the duty of the above Director to have ensured that the cheque book was kept under locked key at a safe place. In this backdrop, there was hardly any occasion for the respondent bank to have doubted the genuineness of the signatures on the cheque in question if any embezzlement was made by the employee of company the respondent Bank cannot be held responsible for it. Respondent Bank had, thus, been rightly exonerated of the liability arising out of the cheque in question by the State Commission in terms of the aforesaid order dated 01.02.2006 which does not call for any interference in revision jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the C P Act, 1986. Dismissed Respondent who has appeared in person admitted that he used to keep his cheque book and other papers in his car or his office drawer and his staff had ready access to the cheque book at both the places. He further admitted that on the first occasion when the two cheques were encashed, he had not even lodged an FIR with the police, as he was not sure who on his own staff could have had access to his cheque book and encashed the cheques. It was only on the third occasion that he lodged an FIR with the police. Hence, it is an admitted fact that the respondent failed to keep the cheque book under lock and key. In view of the above circumstances all the citations cited above are applicable to the case on hand. It is clearly established that the respondent had failed to take due care of his cheque book due to which his own staff could access the same and withdraw the money fraudulently from the bank account. He came to know the same on updating his pass book. Bank cannot be held for deficiency in service in this regard. Secondly, complaint regarding fraudulent withdrawal from the respondent account on the basis of forged cheques, involve complicated and complex questions which require elaborate evidence and hence, the dispute is not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction. As such the complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Form. The facts of the case also clearly indicate that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years and hence, it should have been dismissed by the District Forum. In view of the foregoing, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside.