This revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 22.4.2014 whereby the State Commission dismissed the first appeal No.A/10/587 preferred by the petitioner Bank against the order of the District Forum, Nagpur in CC No.9/713. -2- 2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant had opened a saving bank account with the petitioner Bank. She made various deposits in that account from time to time. The complainant gave a written request on 4.4.2009 to the petitioner for issue of new cheque book. Instead of delivering the cheque book to the complainant, the petitioner Bank delivered it to some unknown person, who as per the allegations made in the complaint withdrew a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- from the account of the complainant on the basis of forged cheques. 3. The petitioner as also the other opposite parties filed a joint written statement. They admitted that the respondent/complainant has a saving bank account in their Bank. According to the petitioner fresh cheque book was issued to the complainant against the requisition signed by her. It is also pleaded that the above-noted amount has been withdrawn by the complainant herself under her own signatures and the payments were made after due comparison of the signatures on the cheques with the specimen signatures available in the Bank account. The petitioner also pleaded that a criminal case in respect of the aforesaid allegation was filed with the police and pursuant to the criminal complaint one Matin Ahmed was arrested and -3- the case against him is still pending. According to the opposite party until the criminal case is decided, it cannot be said that the amount has been unauthorizedly withdrawn. The petitioner also took the plea that the dispute under the complaint is of complicated nature and it cannot be decided summarily. Therefore, the complaint be relegated to the Civil Court. 4. Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence partly allowed the complaint and ordered as under: - “1) The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. 2) The non-applicants No.1, 2 & 4 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,02,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 p.c.p.a. from 19.11.2009 till realization of entire amount. 3) The non-applicants No.1,2 & 4 shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental and physical harassment. 4) The non-applicants No.1, 2 & 4 shall pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the complaint. 5) The non-applicants No.1, 2 & 4 shall comply the said order jointly & individually within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.” 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the Ditricti Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order. -4- 6. Learned Ms. Arti Singh, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Foras below are based on incorrect appreciation of fact and law. It is contended that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the disputed cheques were encashed after due verification of the signatures on the cheques and comparing the same with the specimen signatures of the complainant available with the Bank. It is contended that the Foras below have also failed to appreciate that onus of proving that the cheques have been encashed by unauthorized person was on the complainant and the complainant has not led any evidence in this regard. Thirdly, it is contended that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the cheques in question were encashed after due diligence. Therefore, even if payments have been made on the basis of forged signatures similar to the signatures of the complainant, the Bank cannot be held negligent or deficient in service for the wrong payment. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bank of Maharashtra vs. M/s Automotive Engineering Co. (1993) 2 SCC 97. 7. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to revisional -5- jurisdiction of the National Commission. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission flows from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under: “to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” 8. On reading of the above, it is clear that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited to the extent that Commission can interfere with the order of the Fora below only if there is a jurisdictional error or the order suffers from material irregularity. 9. In the matter of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011(3) Scale 654 wherein it was observed as under: - “Also it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, -6- and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora”. 9. Coming to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, on perusal of the additional submissions of the petitioner in its written statement filed before the Consumer Forum it is clear that the petitioner Bank is not seriously disputing that the sum of Rs.2,02,000/- has been withdrawn from the saving bank account of the complainant on the basis of forged cheques. If this was not true, there was no occasion for the petitioner Bank to file an FIR regarding wrongful withdrawal of the amount on the basis of forged signatures, with the police. Not only this, as per the pleadings of the petitioner one Matin Ahmed was arrested during investigation by Bombay Police and he is being prosecuted. This -7- circumstance fructifies the contention of the complainant that the amount has been unauthorisedly withdrawn from her account. Further, according to complainant the amount has been withdrawn on the basis of the cheques issued from a new cheque book delivered by the petitioner Bank to an unauthorized person. Although the case of the petitioner Bank is that the cheque book was delivered to the complainant after obtaining her signatures on the register but no evidence in this regard has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. From this it is clear that the petitioner Bank committed deficiency in service in handing over the cheque book pertaining to the account of the complainant to unauthorized person and by forging the cheques contained in that cheque book the amount in question was unauthorisedly withdrawn. Thus, the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is writ large and the concurrent findings of the Foras below in this regard cannot be faulted. 10. The petitioner has relied upon the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bank of Maharashtra vs. Automotive Engineering Co. (supra) : - “After considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, it appears to us that the court of -8- appeal below has categorically come to the finding that on visual examination no sign of forgery or tampering with the writings on the cheque could be detected. There is also evidence on record which has not been upset by the court of appeal below that the then agent of the bank had taken the care to verify the serial number of the cheque, the signature on the cheque with the specimen signature of the constituent, namely, the defendant and on a scrutiny of the cheque visually no defect could be detected by him. It also transpires from the evidence that the defendant had sufficient amount in the bank to cover the said payment of Rs. 6,500/- at the relevant date when the cheque was presented for payment.” 11. The aforesaid judgment is of no avail to the petitioner because the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that if with due diligence and in good faith a cheque has been unauthorisedly encashed, the Bank cannot be held to be guilty of negligence simply because ultraviolet lamp or some advance technology was not used to verify that the cheque has been signed by the authorized person. Hon’ble Supreme Court after holding thus, taking note of the fact that the amount in question was unauthorisedly withdrawn from the account of the party, directed to return the principal amount without any interest on the same. -9- 12. In the instant case the negligence on the part of the petitioner Bank in delivering the cheque book pertaining to the account of the complainant to an unauthorized person is established and the said cheque book has become the instrumental in the wrongful withdrawal of the amount. Thus the Foras below have rightly held the petitioner Bank to be guilty of negligence and deficiency in service which has led to unauthorized withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant. The amount has been wrongfully withdrawn by a third party. Therefore, the petitioner Bank is under obligation to make good the loss caused to the complainant. 13. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the orders of the Foras below which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. | 
