PHOOL SINGH Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 13. 10. 2006 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur allowing appeal against the order dated 29. 3. 2006 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent bank to pay amount of 22,500 with interest @ 6% p. a. from 11. 9. 2001 and cost.

(2.) PETITIONER/complainant was main-taining account with Bhilai branch of the respondent/opposite party Bank. Petitioner alleged that on 19. 9. 2001 he found cheque No. 376545 missing. On contacting respondent he came to know that amount of Rs. 22,500 was paid against that cheque to one S. Tiwari on 11. 9. 2001. Petitioner further alleged that the cheque bore the rubber stamp of Institute and there was no signature above the word 'director' of the Institute nor was it filled in the hand-writing of the petitioner. Said amount was wrongly paid by the Bank. Complaint was, therefore, filed seeking payment of the said amount with interest by the petitioner which was contested by the respondent. In the written version it was, inter alia, alleged that the cheque in question had rubber stamp of the petitioner Institute and the signature and was drawn on self and on its presentation for encashment on 9. 1. 2001 the amount of Rs. 22,500 was paid. It was denied that there was any negligence or carelessness on the part of Bank in making payment of the cheque.

(3.) MAIN thrust of argument advanced by Mr. R. K. Bhawnani for petitioner is that the signature on the cheque was done only in token of authentication of correction of the account number and not for authorising payment thereof. Copy of the cheque in question is at page 27. Loss of cheque was detected by the petitioner after 8 days on 19. 9. 2001 of the making of payment on 11. 9. 2001. In its order the State Commission has recorded cogent reasons in reaching the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on part of the respondent Bank in making payment of the cheque. Also having perused the cheque at page 27, we are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.