YOGENDRA MOHAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 37 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is having a saving bank account No. 10795301768 with the opposite party No. 1 -State Bank of India, Kashipur. It was alleged that on 20.3.2010, theft took place in the house of the complainant and in the said theft, the cheque book of the complainant issued by the opposite party No. 1 besides other articles was stolen. On 21.3.2010, there was Sunday and the intimation with regard to the theft of the cheque book was given by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 on 22.3.2010 and on the same day, the complainant got the duplicate cheque book issued and the complainant came to know that sum of Rs. 90,000 has been withdrawn from his account by use of cheque No. 175369 dated 20.3.2010 by forging his signatures. The said cheque did not contain the signatures of the complainant and the signatures of the complainant were forged on the said cheque. It was alleged that while making payment of the said cheque, the official of the bank did not match the signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) THE opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the signatures on the cheque were matched by the official of the bank with the signatures of the complainant available in the record of the bank; that there is no provision that the payment of cheque of Rs. 50,000 and above cannot be made in cash; that the complainant has failed in keeping his cheque book in safe custody; that the complainant has himself been negligent in the matter and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.