SANDEEP KUMAR TANDON Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant, assailing the order of District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi dated 25.8.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.1042/99 entitled Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon V/s. Punjab National Bank.2. The relevant facts, in brief are that the appellant was maintaining two accounts with the respondent Bank, Current Account No.249 in the name of M/s. Sandeep Kumar and Associates (Prop. Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon) and Saving Bank Account No.3335 in the name of Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon. The appellant had issued two cheques on 2.6.1997, one for Rs.10,000/- drawn on his Current Account No.249 and another for Rs.8,000/- drawn on his Saving Bank Account No.3335 and handed them to his employee Shri Kageshwar Senapati for encashment. However, the said employee of the respondent did not return with the money so withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant met the Manager of the respondent Bank at the Extension Counter, Salwan Public Shool, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on 3.6.1997 and came to know that the cheque bearing No.419667 issued for an amount of Rs.8,000/- had been fraudulently and dishonestly tampered with by changing the amount of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.18,000/- and despite the visible alteration in the amount the cheque in question was passed by the respondent Bank without any authentication from the appellant. As such the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for direction to the respondent to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.28,000/- together with interest @ 24% p. a. w. e. f.2.6.1997 till the date of actual realization together with damages of Rs.10,000/- as well as costs.

(2.) A registered notice of the complaint was issued to the respondent by the learned District Forum and since the respondent did not appear before the District Forum, despite notice, the respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order/proceedings dated 14.8.2000.

(3.) On the basis of the material on record the learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground that it was difficult to hold the respondent or its employees guilty of deficiency in service and the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable under the Act.