M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 02.08.2013 passed in C.C.No.49/2013 by District Commission, Gwalior)

RAMBABU CHAUDHARY,

S/O LATE SHRI GORELAL CHAUDHARY,

R/O LAXMIGANJ, NEAR DHARAMKANTA,

A.B.ROAD, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                            ….       APPELLANT

                           VERSUS

1. BRANCH MANAGER,

    UCO BANK,

    BRANCH-OLD HIGH COURT,

    JAYENDRAGANJ, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.) 

2. MANAGER,

    UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE,

    10, B.T.M. SARNI,

    BREYBORN ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001.                                                               ….       RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA     :   MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

     Shri Saurabh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

                 Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.                                                                 

O R D E R

(Passed On 11.07.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                   This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.49/2013, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant/appellant had a savings bank account no. 0746010005043 with the opposite party

-2-

no.1/respondent no.1 bank. On 16.12.2005, the opposite parties issued a cheque book containing 20 cheques from 775181 to 775200. It is alleged that on 23.11.2012, when he approached the bank to give survival certificate, he deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in his account and while getting entries in his passbook he came to know that one Anil Rai from different cheques on different dates withdrawn a sum of Rs.14,86,750/- from his account via Canara Bank, Jaipur. On 24.11.2012 he lodged a written complaint with the opposite party no.1 bank. He also lodged a police complaint also. It is alleged that the bank with conspiracy of one Anil Rai issued cheque book and withdrawn the aforesaid amount and has committed deficiency in service. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.14,86,750/- with interest and another compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs.

3.                The opposite party no.1 & 2-bank denied all the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that on an application signed by the complainant on 21.09.2012, cheque book was issued. Before issuing cheque book his signatures were matched with the specimen signatures available in the bank record. Further alleging that a report is lodged with the police on 03.12.2012 and inquiry is pending before investigation bureau therefore the complaint filed is premature. 

-3-

4.                The District Commission after appreciating facts and circumstances of the matter held that the dispute involved in the complaint is regarding criminal in nature and in summary proceedings, no investigation can be carried out regarding criminal case. The District Commission further held that the opposite party bank cannot he held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Commission therefore dismissed the complaint.

5.                Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents Annexures C-1 to C-7 filed by the complainant and Annexures R-1 to R-5 filed by the opposite parties as also the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the bank without comparing his signatures with the specimen signature available with the bank issued cheque book and made payment through cheques on different dates with conspiracy of one Anil Rai, therefore, the bank has committed deficiency in service. He argued that on request made in requisition slip attached with the previous cheque book only, the bank could issue new cheque book. He further argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate this fact and drawn wrong conclusion while dismissing the complaint holding the opposite party bank not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. He therefore prayed that this appeal be

-4-

allowed and the impugned order be set-aside and the complaint also be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/respondents bank argued that after comparing the signatures of the complainant with the specimen signatures available with the bank, cheque book was issued and it appears that the complainant with conspiracy of someone else, himself has withdrawn the amount through different cheques. On complaint being received from the complainant, police report was lodged by the bank promptly. He argued that the forgery/genuineness of cheques is an issue which involved complicated question of facts and law and involves a lot of evidence and detailed enquiry which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. He further argued that the complaint is pre-mature.  He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in Safe Home Developers and Contractors Vs Samata Sahakari Bank Limited IV (2012) CPJ 729 (NC) and in Jaspreet Singh Vs ICICI Home Finance Co.Ltd. & Anr. III (2013) CPJ 624 (NC).

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties an on careful perusal of the evidence available on record we observe that earlier cheque book was issued to the complainant/appellant in the year 2005 and the application for issuing the cheque book in question was made in the year 21.09.2012.  It is not necessary that on request made in the requisition slip

-5-

attached with the previous cheque book, the bank can only issue cheque book.  On an application dated 21.09.2012 (R-1) made by the complainant/appellant for issuance of cheque-book, the respondent bank after comparing the signatures of the complainant with the specimen signatures available in the bank (R-2) issued cheque book.

9.                The bank has filed affidavits of Shri Om Prakash Kathal, Chief Manager and Shri C. P. Das, Chief Manager stating therein that after comparing the signatures with the specimen signatures of the complainant/appellant, the cheque book was issued and cheques were encashed. The bank has produced the copy of cheques enchased. On complaint being received from the complainant regarding forgery, the bank itself lodged the complaint with the police on 03.12.2012, (R-4) whereas the complainant lodged FIR with the police on 04.01.2013 (C-5), it means the bank lodged report promptly comparing to the complainant.  On 10.01.2013, the opposite party/respondent bank also made a complaint (R-6) to the Superintendent of Police, M. P. State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, Bhopal.    Thus the bank has performed its duties and it cannot be said that the bank has committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

10.              It is true that both parties have alleged forgery against each other. As per case of the complainant/appellant, the respondent bank

-6-

employees in conspiracy with third party have withdrawn the amount, whereas the bank says that it was the complainant/appellant who was in conspiracy with third party had withdrawn the amount. The matter in respect of cheating and forgery is still pending for investigation before Police and no conclusion has been drawn by the Police either in favour of the complainant or against the complainant. Complaint was lodged to the Police by the complainant himself as also the bank and is being investigated. In view of these facts the complaint filed by the complainant appears pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground also with a liberty to file again as and when the complainant is informed in respect of result of the investigation of the case pending before Police.

11.              Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that looking to the present facts and circumstances, the bank has not committed deficiency in service as the bank issued the cheque book and made payment after comparing the signatures of the appellant with the specimen signatures as we have already held. On the other hand the complaint is also premature one.

12.              Thus we find that the District Commission has nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order which is passed after considering evidence and facts and circumstances of the case does not call for any interference.

-7-

13.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                          (D. K. Shrivastava)

            Presiding Member                             Member