Haryana

StateCommission

A/435/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      435 of 2015

Date of Institution:      12.05.2015

Date of Decision :       04.11.2015

 

State Bank of India, New Grain Market, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal through its Branch Manager, Haryana-121102, India.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Than Singh s/o Sh. Ram Chand, Resident of Panchwati Colony, Jodhpur Road, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal (Haryana)

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate assisted by Shri Mohan Singh, Branch Manager for appellant.

                             Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

State Bank of India (for short ‘SBI’)-Opposite Party is in appeal against the order dated April 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Than Singh-complainant/respondent was having saving bank account No.30406780167 with SBI, Palwal. In February, 2013 he applied for issuance of cheque book. It was alleged that he did not receive the cheque book. However, when he went to the bank to get his pass book completed, he came to know that someone got withdrawn Rs.7.00 lacs from his account through two cheques bearing No.598890 of Rs.3.00 lacs and No.598891 of Rs.4.00 lacs. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that neither he received cheque book nor used any cheques and thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of SBI, Palwal.

3.      The opposite party-SBI contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that cheque book was issued by the bank on February 2^nd, 2013 and the same was delivered to the complainant on February 6^th, 2013. The acknowledgement of the delivery bears the signature of the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint issuing direction to the appellant/opposite party as under:-

“…………Hence the complaint is hereby allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of withdrawal of Rs.7,00,000/- illegally and fraudulently from the complainant’s account till its deposit in the complainant’s account alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which opposite party would be liable to pay the above ordered amount with interest @ 9% instead of 7%.”       

5.      The first question for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the cheque book was delivered to the complainant or not?

6.      It is not disputed that the cheque books are issued by the Controlling Office of the bank and the same was dispatched to the complainant by speed post. The appellant/opposite party placed on the file before the District Forum the Delivery Slip Exhibit R-3 which shows that the speed post article was delivered to Than Singh-complainant. The writing (Exhibit R-1) of Postman, who delivered the speed post article to the addressee, that is, the complainant has been produced in evidence. There is no rebuttal on behalf of the complainant to the above said evidence. Thus, it is abundantly established that the speed post article whereby cheque book was sent to the complainant was delivered to him.

7.      Now the question arises for determination is as to whether the withdrawal of Rs.7.00 lacs through two cheques was by someone else other than the complainant and was there any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank or not?

8.      Hon’ble National Commission Revision Petition No.961 of 2015, Umesh Ohri vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anr, decided on April 22^nd, 2015, in a similar situated case held as under:-

“6.     It would thus be seen that the plea taken by the complainant/petitioner is that the cheques paid by the bank did not bear his signatures, meaning thereby that the aforesaid cheques were forged documents.  If somebody forged the signatures of the complainant on the cheques and thereafter got them encashed from the bank, it would also amount to cheating using the forged documents for the purpose.  If the cheque book was not received by the complainant there could also be a possible criminal conspiracy involving one or more bank officials.  This is more so, when the disputed signatures are not wholly different from the standard signatures of the account holder.  Thus, there were serious allegations of forgery and cheating in the complaint filed by the petitioner.  The Consumer Forum which follows a summary procedure for deciding the complaints filed before it, is not a proper forum to adjudicate on such serious allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating etc. since it would require recording extensive evidence including the opinion of handwriting expert, to decide whether the questioned signatures were actually made by the complainant or not.

7.      This is also the case of the bank that the cheque book from which cheques in question were taken out and used was duly sent to the complainant and was received by one Sh. Sant Ram on his behalf.  Ex. C6 is the document regarding mobile number of the complainant and as noted by the State Commission the name of Sh. Sant Ram is also recorded on it.  Therefore, Court/Forum which is called upon to adjudicate on the issues involving in this complaint will also have to record evidence to find out whether the cheque in question was received by Sh. Sant Ram and if so, whether he was authorised to receive the said cheque book on behalf of the complainant.  The aforesaid exercise cannot be undertaken in a summary procedure adopted by a Consumer Forum.  Therefore, in our view, it was not proper for the District Forum to go into the questions involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating involved in this case and take it upon itself to adjudicate upon the said issues.  Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.  The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.  We, however, make it clear that dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of the complainant/petitioner approaching a Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance.”

9.      We have summoned the record of the bank consisting of specimen signature on the account opening form of the complainant as well as the original cheques on the basis of which the bank made the payment, besides payment vouchers showing withdrawal by the complainant at different times. We have compared the signature on the account opening form as well as the supporting documents showing self attestation by the complainant, that is, copy of Ration Card, copy of Driving Licence and signature of the complainant on the disputed cheques. Signature of the complainant on the dispute cheques tally with each other. Even the signature of the complainant tally on the withdrawal form, vide which the complainant withdrew the amount at different times. The complainant procured the opinion of Shri Satya Dev Aggarwal, Fingerprints & Handwriting Expert, and the same is not tenable in view of the cogent and convincing evidence whereby it is abundantly established that the cheque book was delivered to the complainant and the disputed cheques were signed and presented by him for withdrawing the amount. The act and conduct of the complainant shows that he has tried to cheat the bank by filing complaint on falsehood taking plea that he never received the cheque book and never used the disputed cheques withdrawing Rs.7.00 lacs. The District Forum has failed to appreciate all these aspects of the case and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

10.    In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the opposite party/appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 04.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL