11/12/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

             This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.CC 196 of 2008 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund Rs.6,93,677/-, pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within 15 days from the date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realisation. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the Complainant is the proprietor of M/s Benud Behari Dutt and has been running his proprietorship business for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self- employment.  Sri Somnath Mitra an employee of the Complainant had withdrawn the sum of Rs.6,93,677/- from the Complainant’s current account lying with the OP Bank by forging the signatures of the account holder on the cheques, namely, (1) cheque no.025192 dated 23/12/2005 of Rs.1,50,802/- (2) cheque no.383417 dated 21/09/2006 of Rs.1,74,831/- and (3) cheque no.383435 dated 27/11/2006 of Rs.3,68,044/-.  The Complainant having come to learn about the said matter, lodged complaint with the Bhowanipur Police Station on 29/12/06 and the case no.292 dated 30/12/06 u/s 120B/408/468/474/477A IPC was registered.  Handwriting expert opined that the signatures on the questionable documents were not of the signatures of Goloke Dutt rather the same tallied with the signatures of Sri Somnath Mitra.  The Bank officials were negligent in clearing those cheques and there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant is engaged in commercial activity and, as such, the complaint case is not maintainable.  It is contended that the Learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein forgery was alleged.  It is submitted that when the forgery was committed by the staff of the Complainant, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank could not arise. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that on similar facts the Hon'ble National Commission upheld the decisions of the Learned District Forum and the State Commission and the SLP was dismissed. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  In the petition of complaint it has been clearly mentioned that the Complainant has been carrying on his business for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  The Complainant, therefore, is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986.

            Secondly, on the same facts between the same parties, the earlier cases were decided in favour of the Complainants and the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.3729 of 2012 [HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Goloke Dutt] and RP No.3730 of 2012 upheld the decisions of the Learned District Forum and this Commission.  Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.

            The Appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment is affirmed.