DEEP CHAND JAIN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased certain shares from the third respondent. They were to be sent for transfer in the petitioner/purchaser's name, which required the verification of the signature of the third opposite party, for which he approached the respondent No. 2. Verification of the second respondent related to the 'signature, name, address and seal' of attesting officer. It would appear that while the 'signature and seal' had been put in, but 'name and address' of the attesting officer was not entered. This document was sent to the share broker at Bhopal for transfer but it was received back in August, 1997 with the observation that the signatures of the seller-3rd respondent, are not properly attested. As per the complainant, he was keen to sell the shares then the price was about Rs. 160 per share but due to the deficiency on the part of respondent No. 2, lot of time elapsed within which the prices of share fell to Rs. 50/- per share and he had to suffer a huge loss. Thus, alleging deficiency for this he entered into protracted correspondence and discussions, with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Since nothing was coming out of it, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who dismissed the complaint. On an appeal before the State Commission, the case was remanded back to the District Forum, which again after hearing the parties dismissed this complaint. Against which an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who partly allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents. Not satisfied with relief granted, this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that there indeed was deficiency on the part of the second respondent by not mentioning the 'name' and 'address' in the attestation form of the transfer certificate, but as rightly held by the State Commission, it is not the Bank alone who should be held responsible. Equal responsibility also rests on the petitioner who should have been vigilant and should have observed the deficiency when he received the attestation from the second respondent. Admittedly, the Bank alone was not obliged to render the service, this could have been got done by any Magistrate, Notary Public or other Competent Officer in this regard. This is not a statutory duty cast upon Bank to attest the signature, they were doing it out of good will. If all the claims in the attestation forms were not complete then the petitioner should have taken care at the time of receiving the form that it is complete in all respects. We are also conscious of the fact, that either in the complaint or in the affidavit, no date has been mentioned as to when the attestation form was sent to the stock broker in Bhopal and for how long he sat over this? What is on record is the date of receiving the transfer certificates back from Bhopal, i.e., on 20.8.1997. In the absence of which the plea of the petitioner that he suffered loss on account of delay resulting from the incomplete attestation, does not withstand our scrutiny and at best what the respondent No. 2 could be faulted at was for being partly deficient in service and in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be fastened with any consequential loss sustained by the petitioner.