(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Delhi State Commission dated 12.03.2010 resulting in dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner Bank.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent no.1 / complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner bank and respondent no.2 bank alleging that her husband had issued a cheque of Rs.1,40,000/ - in her favour. The cheque was drawn against account no. 5445 with the petitioner bank. The complainant deposited said cheque to be credited in her account no. 17474 in respondent no.2 bank and obtained duly stamped deposit slip. The amount, however, was not credited in the account of the complainant. Later, on inquiry, the complainant came to know that amount of aforesaid cheque had been withdrawn by some unknown person on 18.02.2014 by cancelling the crossing of the cheque under the forged signatures of the account holder of Pardeep Kumar Kapoor, by presenting the said cheque with the petitioner bank. According to the complainant, the Punjab National Bank committed deficiency in service by negligently or otherwise allowing the third party to get hold of the cheque and the petitioner Syndicate Bank committed deficiency in service by allowing encashment of crossed cheque as a borrower cheque despite of the fact that crossing of the cheque was cancelled by forging the signatures of the account holder Kuldeep Kapoor.
(3.) BOTH the banks resisted the complaint. According to the PNB, the cheque was never presented to them for collection of the amount. It was pleaded that deposit slip pertaining to the cheque is a fabricated document. The Syndicate Bank took the plea that complaint is not maintainable for the reason that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Bank. On merits, it was pleaded that since the crossing of cheque was duly cancelled under the signature of account holder Shri Kuldeep Kapoor, the bank rightly paid cheque amount to the bearer.