Passed by Shri.Atul Alsi, Hon’ble President. 1. The complainant has filed this complaint alleging negligence on the part of OP Bank in allowing defalcation of Rs.5 lac which were allegedly illegally withdrawn from complainant’s account through forged cheque transaction and thereby claiming refund of misappropriated amount, besides compensation and cost of litigation. 2. Facts in brief are that, The complainant is the Manager of Dhanashree Gramin Bigarsheti Urban Cooperative Society, bearing registration No.1101. The complainant society is having an account with the OP Bank which has a cash credit facility limit of Rs.40to50 lac with passbook and cheque book facility. The complainant alleges that on 21/4/2014, by misusing the cheque bearing No.0144844 of complainant’s society, an amount of Rs.5 lac was misappropriated by the OP Bank through unauthorized person namely Vivek Yashwant Raut by putting forged signature of the complainant society thereon. The complainant reported the matter to Nagbhid Police Station, Distt.Chandrapur on 20/8/2015 and an offence came to be registered U/s 120B,420,468,469 read with 34 of IPC against OP Nos.1 & 2. After repeated demands from the complainant society, OP Bank failed to refund the misappropriated amount of Rs.5 lac and hence the complainant issued legal notie to OP No.2 claiming refund of misappropriated amount alongwith Rs.1 lac towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation. However, non compliance of the notice resulted into filing of instant petition. 3. After admission of the complaint, notice was served on both the OPs. The opposite parties filed their common reply to the complaint and denied allegations against them. They submitted that there is no relation of Consumer in between the complainant and the OP Bank and the case has not been filed within the limitation period as the incidence occurred in the year 2014. After allegation of defaulcation by the complainant, the OP Bank has already offered adequate explanation to the complainant. The OP Nos.1 & 2 have submitted that they have cleared the cheque presented to the OP Bank after due verification of signature as per banking rules and guidelines. They submitted that the police complaint for alleged defaulcation of Rs.5 lac was lodged with the police by the complainant after a lapse of 21 months from the accrual of incidence and the consumer complaint has been filed after about 5 years therefrom which is hopelessly barred by limitation. They submitted that the complainant has no case on merit and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. The counsel for the complainant & OP argued on the lines of their respective stands taken in the complaint and written version. 5. We have gone through the complaint, WS, documents and affidavit filed by the parties. After careful scrutiny of the documents filed on record and after hearing the parties, we record our findings in respect of the allegation of deficiency in service, as follows.. REASONING 6. The basic dispute involved in the matter is about clearance of cheque of Rs.5 lac of the complainant society by the OP Bank. The complainant has not mentioned anywhere that the cheque utilized in the transaction was not from the authorized cheque book issued to it by the OP Bank. As far as signatures on the cheque is concerned the Bank officials are required to verify the same with reasonable care and caution, but they are not supposed to be the handwriting experts. In the case in hand, the bank officials have cleared the cheque after verifying signature of the authorized person. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque in question also bears the seal of the complainant. The complainant has not filed any complaint to the police about missing or misplacing of said cheque, prior to the transaction nor it is communicated to the OP Bank prior to the transaction with a request to stop its payment. Cheque is a negotiable document and hence it is incumbent on its custodian account holder to keep the same in safe custody and to immediately communicate to the bank in case it is rendered missing. Further the complainant has not proved the allegation of forged signature on the cheque by filing expert evidence to that effect on record. Hence in the instant case when the cheque is issued from the authorized chequebook issued to the complainant, and when the OP bank has verified the signature with reasonable care and caution before clearing the cheque, we see no alterior motive of the OP Bank in honouring the cheque. Therefore the case has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order.. Final Order 1. The complaint is dismissed. 2. Parties to bear their own cost | 
