BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.760 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.183 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA

Between

The Branch Manager,
ICICI Bank Limited
M.G.Road Branch, Vijayawada
Krishna District, rep. by its
Legal Manager, Mr.R.Sreenivasa Rao                                                    

Sri Vallabhaneni Mohan Rao
S/o V.Narasimha Rao, Occ: Business
R/o Jami Gollapalli Village, Pamarru Mandal
Krishna District

Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                     Counsel for the Respondent

                       SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

 TUESDAY THE TWENTY NIENTH 

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                       1.                

2.             `45,000/- was withdrawn from his account through cheque bearing No.658033.  On his request the appellant issued photo copy of cheque and he realized that the cheque was encashed by Ch.Srinivas by forging his signature on the cheque.

3.              

4.               

5.               During the course of investigation the police Machavaram had sent the cheque along with the respondent’s admitted signature to A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad which gave its opinion on 5.9.2008 that the signature on the cheque is different from the signature of the respondent. 

6.            

7.                

8.             

9.             

10.           

11.           `45,000/- from the account of the respondent through cheque No.658033 on 23.3.2006 by the drawee of the cheque is not disputed. `45,000/- which was withdrawn from his S.B.A/c.  

12.           `1,00,000/-.  

13.            The District Forum referring to the opinion of the hand writing expert, allowed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank in the matter of honouring the cheque.

14.              as held by the  

“Basis of complaint is encashment of about 250 forged and fabricated cheques by the opposite party which were not issued by the complainant or their authorized signatories. These cheques pertain to period commencing from 16.05.2006 to 5.11.2008. Record also contains opinion of Addl .Chief Examiner of Documents, C.I.D. Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated 22.10.2010 which is in two pages, but without any reasoning for the purpose of proving a document genuine or forged. Handwriting expert have to take photos of the documents and has to compare them with the genuine signatures and has to give reasons for proving signatures to be genuine or forged. This opinion neither contains reasoning for similarities/dissimilarities nor contains any photos of any documents. Detailed examination in chief as well as cross examination of handwriting expert will be required-----“

15.           

16.           

“The progress made so far was discussed and reviewed in depth by the Board. It was brought to the notice of the Board that in its special meeting held on 22.5.96 the Board was informed that Shri Vijay Mutha of Mutha & Co., Chartered Accountant had come to Mr.Kanga's office in the beginning of the last week of March 1996 and that he made a confession about the embezzlement of Rs.12 crores by him by joining hands with the Bank officials in respect of the Trust's FDR amount embezzeled by him from the Banks involved in the fraud and had promised that he was making arrangements to deposit all the dues in his Bank Account. On this Mr.Kanga insisted on immediate payment. Mr.Mutha then said that he would require about a week's time. Thereafter Mr.Mutha came to Mr.Kanga's office on 30.3.96 and handed over to Mr.Kanga a cheque of Rs.12 crores. He requested Mr.Kanga that as he hoped to collect the requisite amount, it would be desirable that the cheque should not be produced for encashment immediately then. The meeting was told that the said cheque of Rs.12 crores was retained on Lawyer's advice and kept in their custody with the hope that the embezzelled amount could be recovered from him and that it was a concrete evidence that the Trust money was embezzled by him in cooperation and collusion with the Bank officers.“

17.           

18.              

19.           

“The only question to be decided is, when should this jurisdiction be exercised by the Commission. In our view the Commission should address itself to the quantity of the claim, the nature of the claim, the nature of the evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of the claim and the damages suffered and the nature of the legal issues before deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the Civil Courts in the regular course. It is not disputed that the Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy. The Consumer Forums have been given the responsibility of achieving this object. They were not meant to duplicate the civil courts, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the Civil Courts.

“Although the reasons given in the impugned order of the Commission for referring the present matter to the Civil Court is cryptic, we have been through the records filed before us and are satisfied that the Commission’s decision was correct. There is no doubt having regard to the nature of the claim, the large amount of damage claimed, and the extensive inquiry inot the evidence which would be necessary in order to resolve the disputes between the parties that this is not 

20.           

21.            n the event the respondent approaches the Civil Court, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others” reported in III (2012) CPJ 17”.

                                                                                                                                      KMK*