Bench: T ], D ]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 2003
Vijaya Bank .. Appellant(s) Versus
Gurnam Singh .. Respondent(s) O R D E R
This appeal, by special leave is directed against order dated 16th July, 2002,
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for
short, "the National Commission") declining to entertain the
appellant’s revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). The material facts, found by the
forums below and relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows : The
respondent. (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") had a
savings bank account with the appellant bank. Somehow he lost his cheque book
containing one unused leaf and the requisition slip required for issue of a
new cheque book. On 24th September, 1999, when the complainant visited the bank
to draw money, he was surprised to find that there was only a balance of
Rs.1682.93 in his account. On enquiries being made, it transpired that the
requisition slip had been used to get a new cheque book issued from the bank and
the left over ..2/−
: 2 :
cheque in the lost cheque book had been misused to draw an amount of Rs.2,500/−
from complainant’s account. It was also discovered that an amount of
Rs.3,50,000/− had been withdrawn from the account by using a cheque leaf of the
newly issued cheque book.
Having failed to get the amount so withdrawn from his account reimbursed
by the bank, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short, "the District
Forum") alleging deficiency in service by the Bank. Upon consideration of
the material before it, which included examination of complainant’s account
opening form; the requisition slip; and the cheque in question, vide order
dated 4th December, 2001, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there
was gross deficiency in the service by the bank which resulted in loss to the
complainant. The District Forum found that specimen signatures on the account
opening form and the cheque used for withdrawal of money were different and
more significantly when cheque in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/− was presented,
balance in the account of the complainant was only 3,46,682.93/− and yet it
was honoured by recording a debit entry of Rs. 3,317.07/− as recoverable from
the complainant. Consequently, the District Forum accepted the complaint and
directed the bank to credit the amounts of Rs.2,500/− and Rs. 3,50,000/− less
Rs. 5,000/− in the account of the ..3/−
: 3 :
complainant along with interest @ 10 per cent per annum w.e.f. 17th August,
1999 till the date of the correct entry.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal to the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, " the State
Commission") but without any success. The State Commission affirmed the
findings recorded by the District Forum.
Not being satisfied, the appellant preferred revision petition before
the National Commission. As afore−stated, the National Commission has dismissed
the revision petition on the ground that both the forums below have recorded a
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1207035/
concurrent finding of fact that there is negligence on the part of the bank in
rendering the services. Hence, the present appeal.
We have heard Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel that all the
forums below have erred in ignoring the expert’s opinion adduced in evidence
by the bank in support of its stand that there was no forgery in the signatures
on the cheques in question. We do not find any substance in the submission for
the simple reason that the said report was no evidence in the eye of law.
Admittedly, the report was not proved by summoning the expert. The Manager who
had merely annexed the report with his affidavit could not prove the same and,
therefore, ..4/−
: 4 :
the forums below were justified in ignoring the report. On a query by the Court
as to how in the absence of any overdraft facility being enjoyed by the
complainant, a cheque for the amount which was in excess of the balance amount
in the account of the complainant could be honoured, learned counsel is unable
to furnish any satisfactory explanation. In our opinion, this fact, highlighted
by the State Commission, by itself is a glaring example of
negligence/deficiency in the service of the bank. In the light of of the
factual scenario as emanating from the orders of the District forum as also the
State Commission and bearing in mind the limited scope of revisionary
jurisdiction of the National Commission, we are of the opinion that the
National Commission was justified in declining to entertain the revision
petition against the said orders. The appeal, being bereft of any merit, is
dismissed accordingly with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/−.
....................J.
[ D.K. JAIN ]
....................J.
[ T.S. THAKUR ]
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 02, 2009.
Indian Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1207035/
