Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

These two appeals are disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law.  Appeal no.62/2009 arises out of order dated 03/12/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.317/2002 Shri Vishamber Shewakramani v/s. Syndicate bank, while Appeal no.63/2009 arises out of order dated 03/12/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.318/2002 Vishamber Shewakramani v/s. Syndicate Bank; both passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum (‘forum below’ in short).

Both these consumer complaints arises out of alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank for encashing the forged cheques exhibiting negligence.  Compensation is accordingly claimed in both these consumer complaints. According to respondent bank they were diligent in honouring the cheques and the cheques were duly honoured only after verifying the specimen signatures available with them. It denied any deficiency in service on their part.

Heard Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Praful Sawant-advocate proxy for Mr.S.N.Acharya-Advocate for the respondent bank.

As it appears, the appellant/org.complainant wants to rely upon the circumstances of filing a criminal complaint (F.I.R.) against its employee for practicing fraud and forging the cheques issued and encashing the same.  Mere filing of such criminal complaint or registration of the offence on its basis, would not establish itself that the bank officials were negligent in honouring the cheques, particularly, considering the fact that the bank specifically asserted that the cheques were honoured after due verification of the signature on the cheques with the specimen signatures available with them.

Further, forum below rightly pointed out that report of hand writing expert does not establish or indicate any forgery.  Since the said report was inconclusive, there is hardly any evidence led on behalf of the appellant/complainant to establish that the bank officials were acted negligently while honouring the cheques.  Thus, the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service on part of the Bank and, as such, ultimately dismissing the complaints cannot be faulted with.

Appellant wants to rely on plethora of judgements, but considering the facts of the instant cases, we find these cases are not of much help to the appellants/complainants.

Thus, finding both the appeals devoid of any substance, we pass following order:-

                                      ORDER

Both the appeals bearing nos.62/2009 & 63/2009 stand dismissed.

In the background of the circumstances, both the parties to bear their own cost.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.