BANK OF BARODA Vs. RAMGOPAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against an order dated 25. 1. 2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in Complaint No. 603/2005 whereby an application of the petitioner for permitting cross-examination of a handwriting expert was rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the complainant had a current bank account with the petitioner. On going through his account, the complainant non-petitioner came to know that a cheque dated 9. 7. 2000 for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs had been encashed and debited from his account even though he had not issued such a cheque. It conspired that one Hari Shanker Agarwal who was his Munim had withdrawn this amount by committing forgery on the cheque. He accordingly filed a FIR with the Manak Chowk Police Station at Jaipur. During the course of investigation, the police sent the cheque and admitted signatures of the said Hari Shanker Agarwal, as also the complainant, for the purpose of determining the authorship of the cheque to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Dr. D. C. Sethi, Deputy Director of the said laboratory had given a report stating that the signatures on the cheque in question were similar to the signatures of Mr. Hari Shanker Agarwal. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint in the Forum below alleging that the Bank had committed deficiency in service by not properly tallying his signatures on the cheque with his specimen signatures and as a result of this he claimed damages amounting to Rs. 6,50,000 from the bank for the loss sustained by him.

(3.) DURING the trial of this complaint in the Forum below, the petitioner moved an application on 19. 9. 2006 and submitted that the handwriting expert has not tallied the signatures on the cheque in question with the specimen signatures of the complainant which are with the Bank and the report dated 31. 12. 2001 sent by the State Forensic Science Laboratory was ambiguous. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the said expert may be summoned and he may be permitted to cross-examine him.