Vijaya Bank vs Gurnam Singh

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withdrawn from the account by using a cheque leaf of the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Having failed to get the amount so withdrawn from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 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.