JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER The first complainant, Dr. Deepak Kumar Gupta and the second complainant, his wife, Dr. Mona Aggarwal are doctors practising in Panchkula. Three cheques were stolen from their car on 26.5.2010. A report was also lodged with the police. This is an indisputable fact that these cheques were having the signatures of the account holders i.e. complainants, husband and wife separately, in two and one cheques respectively. 2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that annexure P-6 which is in the sum of Rs.40,000/-, was not signed by Dr. Deepak Kumar Gupta. His signatures were forged and the bank is deficient in not comparing/verifying his signatures. This plea has been denied by the opposite party. In the written statement they took the stand that these documents are genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was the duty of the bank to verify the signatures and only then they should have given the amount to the stranger. 3. We are not impressed by his arguments. It must be borne in mind that it is the petitioners-complainants, who are to carry the ball in proving their case. When it was a disputed matter, the complainants should have moved an application before the District Forum that they want to show that the signatures are forged one. In that context, neither they produced the hand writing expert report nor they produced the original signatures of Dr. Deepak Kumar Gupta or his passbook or the daily signatures which he affixes, for comparison. No effort was made to move an application asking the court to take specimen signatures and compare the same with the disputed signatures. 4. It is also not understood why did the petitioners keep the signed cheques in the car itself and if they have done so, they should not have left the car all alone. They should have taken the diary in which the cheques were kept alonwith them. There is negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioners themselves. No deficiency can be attributed to the State Bank of India, opposite party. They were to verify the signatures but there is no dispute about the signatures itself. The case is lame of strength and the same is dismissed. | 
