Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/430

CORPORATION BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

DINESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision : 20.03.2015

First Appeal No.430/2010

(Arising out of the order dated 11.03.2010 in Complaint Case No. 189/2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, D.C.Office Complex, Nand Nagri, New Delhi-110093)

       

 

Corporation Bank

through its Authorised Attorney

Branch Kabeer Nagar

Ramodevi Building, C-5,

North Chajjupur

100FT Road, Shahdara

Delhi-110094                                …Appellant  

                                                      

VERSUS

Sh. Dinesh Kumar

S/o Sh. Jaipl Singh

R/o D-61/C, Jyoti Colony

Shahdara, Delhi-110032     .....Respondent

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 11.03.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North-East) Nand Nagari, Delhi.  Vide impugned order the Ld. District Forum held Corporation Bank, Kabir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 guilty of ‘deficiency in service’.  OP was directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal alongwith the amount till the date of payment.  Litigation charges of Rs. 2000/- were also allowed.
2.      Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Sh. Dinesh Kumar resident of D-61/C, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 was having a current account bearing No. 75812 in the name of Floritech India with the OP bank.  On 30.09.2003 the complainant issued a cheque in the name of the one Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma for a sum of Rs. 5000/-.  Complainant alleged that the said Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma tampered with the cheque. He first made overwriting on the figure of Rs. 5000/- so as to read it Rs. 60,000/-.  The said overwriting was again overwritten so as to read it Rs. 75,000/-.  Complainant also alleged that the said Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma forged his signatures on the aforesaid overwriting so as to mislead the OP bank that the overwriting bore his signatures.  On 21.10.2003 an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant by said Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma by presenting the cheque.  The contention of the complainant is that only on 22.02.2007 after receiving the bank statement, he came to know of the forgery committed upon him.  Complainant further alleged that the account in question was in the name of Floritech India, though operated by him.  It ought have borne the stamp of his firm Floritech India at the overwriting.  Complainant alleged that due to the negligence of the OP bank he has suffered a loss of Rs. 70,000/-. He thus prayed for directions to the OP bank to pay to him, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 21.10.2003 i.e. the date of withdrawal of the excess amount.  He has also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.  Complainant also referred to the FIR No. 816/2007 registered with the Police Station Welcome, Delhi relating to the alleged forgery committed upon him by said Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma.  OP bank raised defence stated that one Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma came to their bank with the cheque no.584529 for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- dt. 03.09.2003, on 21.10.2003.  The cheque carried a correction and the same stood signed by the complainant.  Contention of the OP is that they were to honour the customer’s cheque and it was their obligation to honour the cheque.  Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid to said Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma on 21.10.2003.
3.      Next submission of the OP is that the alleged amount was withdrawn on 21.10.2003 whereas the complainant raised objection after a period of five years.
4.      Ld. District Forum observed that with so many overwritings, without the signatures of the complainant, the cheque got encashed. In his present appeal, the OP bank submitted that the correction/overwriting was duly signed by the complainant Sh. Dinesh Kumar.  An amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid as per instructions of the complainant. Next submission of the OP bank in the appeal is that the complainant was habitual in making corrections on the amount of the cheque.  OP bank placed on record several such cheques which carried overwritings and the corrections were duly signed by the complainant.  Appellant also referred to the information received by it under RTI relating of the status of the FIR No. 816/2007. PIO cum Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-West) District informed that no challan had been filed in case FIR No. 816/2007 Police Station Welcome, Delhi.  The cheque in dispute was forwarded to FSL.
5.      We have heard the arguments addressed at length by the counsels for the parties.  It is an admitted case of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by him.  His contention is that he simply issued the cheque for an amount of Rs. 5000/-.  The figure of Rs. 5000/- was tampered.  Before the digit ‘5’ the digit 6 was added and thereafter the figure 6 was overwritten so as to read as 7. This way, the alleged cheque was for an amount of Rs. 75,000/-.  Complainant in Para 4 of his complaint stated that the overwriting was not signed by him. In Para 7 of the complaint, he has stated that his signatures appearing at alteration were forged.
6.      Before proceedings further, it may be mentioned here that the complainant took contradictory stands.  At one place he has stated that the overwriting was unsigned and at another place he has stated that the signatures appearing at the overwriting were forged ones.  Ld. District Forum fell in grave error in observing that the overwriting did not bear any signatures.  Ld. District Forum recorded that with so many overwritings without the signatures of the complainant, the cheque got encashed.  Ld. District Forum perhaps did not have a look at the cheque in question, before giving its findings.  Appellant has placed on record the information received by him under RTI. As per this information, no challan in case FIR No. 816/2007 Police Station Welcome, Delhi was filed in the Court of law.  Appellant has also relied upon the report of FSL which observed that the signatures in question and the admitted signatures were of the one and the same person. It goes to show that the police did not prosecute the matter as there was no material against Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma.  Be that as it may, the complainant remained silent for a period of about five years.  He had been visiting the OP bank during this period.  The cheque which led to the withdrawal of the money on 21.10.2003, was agitated against only in the year 2007.  It does not stand to reason that during this period, the complainant did not see any statement of accounts.
7.      OP bank has also placed on record several cheques admittedly issued by the complainant bearing overwrittings in the amount of money shown in figures. Such practice being followed by the complainant, led the OP bank to believe that the overwriting in question was genuinely made by the complainant.  Ld. District Forum as discussed above wrongly observed that the overwriting did not bear any signatures.
8.      In view of the reasons given above, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum was not right in holding the OP bank guilty in ‘deficiency of service’.  Orders dt. 11.03.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum are hence set aside.  Complaint filed by the complainant in the District Forum is dismissed.
9.      Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10.  FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.