BANK OF BARODA Vs. SATHEESH JOSEPH PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. 135/2004 rejecting the contention of the revision petitioner that the complaint filed before it by the respondent is not maintainable is sought to be revised in this revision filed by the opposite party. Challenge is made to the order impugned on the ground that from the very case pleaded in the complaint it is clear that the allegations made are cheque No. 585 for Rs. 1,80,000 was got encashed by one Selvaraj after stealthily removing the cheque without the knowledge of the complainant and forging his signature. It is contended that the allegation in the complaint is that the amount covered by the cheque No. 585 for Rs. 1,80,000 was unauthorisedly withdrawn on 24.3.2003 by forging the signature of the complainant and by fabricating the entries therein. Paragraphs 3, 10 and 12 of the complaint are relied on by the revision petitioner to contend that the complaint is not one coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is neither entertainable nor maintainable.

(2.) WE cannot uphold the contention of the revision petitioner that the complaint is not maintainable or entertainable by the Forum below on the ground that the allegations of theft of cheque No. 585, forging of signature of complainant and withdrawal of the amount covered by the cheque were made against one Selvaraj and no ground is taken in the revision that any of the officers of the revision petitioner bank colluded with Selvaraj in committing theft of the cheque leaf and also in forging the signature of the complainant by him and allowing him to withdraw the amount. The allegations made against the revision petitioner in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the complaint are reproduced below: "10. There is no wilful laches or negligence on the part of the complainant in the incident of unauthorized withdrawal occasioned due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The said cheque leaf was stolen by the said Mr. Selvaraj from the complainant unnoticed by him and he has fabricated the cheque leaf by filling the same forging the signature of the complainant. 11. If the opposite party has exercised its normal inspection and verification process before passing the said cheque No. 585 the fabrication, forgery and cheating committed by the said Selvaraj could have easily been detected and the complainant ought not have suffered this great loss. The bank has also ommitted to contact the complainant and verify as to the genuineness of the cheque because they have omitted to verify the alleged signatures in the cheque with the specimen signature form. 12. On receipt of the reply notice, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to give the certified copy of the account opening forms and specimen signature forms which was refused by the opposite party. This also amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to be compensated by the opposite party to the extent of his loss. He has also suffered great mental agony in this respect."

(3.) THE sum and substance of the allegation made against the revision petitioner is that if it had exercised its normal inspection and verification process, fabrication, forgery and cheating committed by Selvaraj could have been easily detected and the complainant ought not have suffered great loss. As no case is pleaded by the complainant against the revision petitioner or its officers that they colluded with Selvaraj in forging signature of the complainant and also stealing the cheque we cannot hold that alleged forgery or stealing of the cheque was committed by any of the officers of the bank or by the bank. As pointed out earlier the allegation made against the bank is that it has not exercised its normal inspection and verification process before passing the cheque No. 585. Thus it is clear that the allegation made against the bank is that there was deficiency of service on the part of the bank and it is not the case of the complainant that the bank or its officers were instrumental for the forgery, etc. committed by Selvaraj. So we cannot hold that the complaint is not maintainable. The question whether the cheque was stolen and whether the signature of the complainant was forged by Selvaraj, even if arises, only incidentally for the purpose of determining the question whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner. Selvaraj who is alleged to have committed the offence is not a party to the proceedings before the lower Forum and there arises no question of deciding his role in committing the offences alleged. The dispute that need be resolved in the O.P. is whether the cheque No. 585 contained the signature of the complainant and whether the cheque was got encashed by him. If the cheque contained no signature of complainant and the signature in the cheque is a forged signature of complainant then the question arises for decision is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of revision petitioner in encashing that cheque. So the crucial question that is to be decided is whether the cheque No. 585 contained the signature of complainant or not and Forum is unconcerned with the question who has forged the signature (if the signature is found forged). The question whether cheque contained the signature of complainant can be decided by the Forum in the manner provided by the Indian Evidence Act for proving disputed signature. We are of the view that no complicated question of facts and law are arising for determination and recording of voluminous evidence is also not required to resolve the dispute between parties. Therefore, we find no merit in the revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed. In the result revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.