VIJAYA BANK Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.03.2012, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 542/2011, "Vijaya Bank versus Hardeep Singh", vide which, the said appeal filed against the order dated 08.03.2011, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No. 640/2008, filed by the present respondent, was dismissed on grounds of limitation.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Hardeep Singh filed complaint No. 3299/1997 against the petitioner Vijaya Bank in the year 1997 before the District Forum, saying that the complainant was the holder of a savings bank account No. 9247 with the opposite party (OP) Bank. Some of the leaves (cheques) from the cheque book issued by the Bank to the complainant were stolen by one Gajender Mani who forged his signatures on the stolen cheques and withdrew a sum of Rs.3,37,550/- from his Bank account. When the complainant came to know about the said withdrawals, he lodged an FIR No. 404/96 under section 379/467/471/34 IPC with the Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He alleged negligence against the petitioner Bank in not comparing his signatures on the stolen cheques with his standard signatures. He filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the Bank to credit a sum of Rs.3,37,550/- to his account alongwith interest @18% p.a. and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The said complaint was, however, dismissed by the District Forum vide their order dated 28.12.2002. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of appeal before the Delhi State Commission. However, the said appeal was withdrawn on 02.04.2003, based on the statement made by the counsel for the appellant and an opportunity was given to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The complainant challenged the said order before this Commission, levelling allegations against his counsel, but his revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2006 passed by this Commission. A review petition filed by the complainant against this order was also dismissed on 13.02.2007. There was a second review petition which was also dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 29.02.2008. As per the papers placed on record, another review petition No. 640/2008 was filed before the District Forum by the complainant, seeking review of the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by this Commission on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted the accused in this matter, in the criminal case of cheating and fraudulent withdrawal by impersonation on the basis of forged documents. This review petition is dated 31.01.2007. On record, is a copy of the second complaint filed by the complainant dated July 2008 before the District Forum, in which it has been stated that following the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal case, the complaint should be allowed and the Bank should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,37,550/- to the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a.

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 08.03.2011 allowed the consumer complaint and held the OP Bank guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.3,37,550/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of the withdrawal till payment. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP Bank challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed with a delay of 90 days before the State Commission, the OP Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.