PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 1734 of 2010 dtd. 5/7/2012 emerging from order in consumer complaint no. 239 of 2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bundi, Rajasthan (in short, 'District Forum') dtd. 14/7/2010.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that respondent no. 1 is the proprietor of M/s Ram Gopal Radhey Shyam who had a bank account no. 4089002100000079 with the petitioner with a multi-city cheque facility. The respondent no. 1 intimated the petitioner on 20/12/2005 that four unsigned cheques (nos. 657687, 657688, 657689 and 657690) were stolen from his cheque book by respondent no. 2 on 12/12/2005 for which an FIR No. 542/05 was lodged with the Police Station, Kotwali, Bundi. The petitioner issued instructions not to honour any of these cheques on 20/12/2005. However, cheque no 657687 for Rs.9,00,000.00 had already been presented at a branch of the petitioner Bank in Bhopal and encashed on 15/12/2005. Based upon police enquiry in FIR 542/05 filed by the respondent no.1, Rs.6,91,000.00 was recovered from the premises of respondent no. 2 who was a close associate of respondent no.1 and was visiting him on the day of the theft of the cheques. Respondent no. 1 filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the petitioner alleging deficiency in service in permitting the encashment of the cheque based on a forged signature and seeking refund of Rs.2,09,000.00. After hearing both parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that while a criminal case involving forgery was not tenable before it, there was no ground to establish deficiency in service by the petitioner/opposite party as the responsibility of safeguarding the cheques was that of the respondent no. 1/complainant. The District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service in the encashing of the cheque presented before it and therefore dismissed the complaint. Respondent approached the State Commission in appeal against this order which allowed the same and held that:

(3.) On behalf of the respondent no.1 it has been contended that the petitioner is liable for deficiency in service in having encashed a cheque without verifying the signature. It is also argued that the cheque was wrongly allowed to be encashed as proved by the recovery of Rs.6,91,000.00 from the house of respondent no. 2 as a consequence of police investigations following filing of FIR No. 542/05. It has been alleged that the Bank ought to have verified the signature more carefully before allowing the cheque to be encashed.