(Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Presiding Member)
(1) Heard both the advocates on the point of admission of the complaint. Perused the written objections filed by the opponent. Admittedly, the complainant is having an account in the opponent bank. It is the allegation of the complainant that one of their employees-Ravishankar Mishra, who used to handle the entire work of accounts as well as the banking transaction on behalf of the complainant company, has withdrawn an amount of 63,26,035/- through 26 cheques forging the signature of the authorized signatory of the complainant. It is alleged that the opponent had honoured the aforesaid cheques without comparing the signatures of the authorized signatory with the specimen signature of the authorized signatory available with the opponent at the time of opening the account.
(2) Admittedly, the FIR is lodged in respect of fraudulent transaction and the signatures on the cheques were sent to the Chief State Examiner of the Documents and Hand Writing Expert had opined that the signatures on the cheques in question are not that of authorized signatory.
(3) As against this, the opponent has challenged the admission of the complaint by filing written objections. The learned counsel for the opponent has argued that Ravishankar Mishra, whom the complainant alleges that he has forged the signatures, has not been included as necessary party. Further, the advocate brought to our notice that the said Mishra was in service with the complainant company w.e.f. 15/07/2006 to 11/12/2008. He further stated that the complainant is not giving vital information about their internal auditing, income tax returns during the period. The complainant used to receive the bank statements every month. However, they have not raised any objection regarding the disputed cheques. The advocate of the opponent has further brought to our notice that the disputed signatures are belonging to the complainant only by producing the Expert Report from Hand Writing expert dated 29/01/2009. Thus, we have before us two contradictory hand writing experts’ reports, one is filed by the complainant which denies the signature of the complainant and other is filed by the opponent which states that the signatures are of the complainant. As the expert reports are contradictory to each other, the adjudication of the complaint will require a detailed legal procedure and same will not be possible, as in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein the procedure followed is a summary enquiry. As the complaint involves complicated question of law and evidence, we do not admit the complaint and dismiss the same in limine.
Pronounced on 30th July, 2013.
