CANARA BANK Vs. UPPAL BRASS INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 2nd/3rd May, 1994 passed by the State Commission, Delhi upholding the Order dated 17.6.1992 passed by the District Forum, Delhi.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to notice the facts in details or the orders passed by the two Forums for we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the case. Suffice it to say that accord ing to the complainant, he had an account with the appellant Bank and he drew two cheques bearing numbers 404680 dated 15.5.1990 and 404681 dated 1.6.1990 each for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - in favour M/s. Sehdev Engineering Works, Phagwara and these were crossed as "account payee only" and sent to the said firm by ordinary post. The said firm did not receive the cheques but the complainant found from the statement of account that the amount of the cheques had been debited by the Bank on 23.5.1990. The complainant on enquiries from the Bank found that the two cheques had been paid across the counter to some person named Anil Kumar due to special crossings having been changed and the cheques had been made payable to bearer as also the date of 1.6.1990 was changed to 21st May, 1990. The complainant pleaded gross negligence of the Bank and its officials in making payment on alleged forged cheques and thus deficiency in service .

(3.) THE photo copies of the two cheques are on our record. It is evident that so many cuttings have been made on the two cheques to make them bearer cheques and the date of 1.6.1990 has also been changed to 21.5.1990. The crucial question to be considered and to be determined is whether the cuttings had been authenticated by the drawer of the cheques or it was a forgery and hence negligence of the Bank in making payment on the interpolated forged cheques. The drawer in his affidavit had deposed that the cuttings and alterations do not bear his signatures. The Bank filed the report of the Hand Writing Expert, but it was not considered by the two Forums of any evidentiary value as the report did not bear the signature of the Expert and his affidavit was not filed. The submission of the Counsel for the Bank is that it was on account of a bona fide error that the Bank accidentally filed an unsigned copy of the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert. The signed copy of the opinion is filed before us, but we are not inclined to assess its value in this Revision Petition but would prefer to remand the case to the District Forum.