M/s Chaudhary Engineering Works v. Punjab National Bank

{ Per S.B.Lohia, President } Complainant Himmat Singh who is the proprietor of complainant Firm M/s Chaudhary Engineering Works, has a bank account no. 1665002101004040 with the opposite party no.1. It is alleged that on 10.9.2011 two transactions of Rs. 90,000/- each were made from his account by presenting two forged cheques which were never issued by him. It is alleged that on enquiry, it was found that one Sanjay Tyagi presented a forged cheque no. 828745 dt. 9.9.2011 and one Rahul Singh also presented a forged cheque no. 828744 dt. 10.9.2011 by making forged signatures of the complainant and got encashed amount of Rs. 90,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,80,000/-. The opposite parties without confirming and comparing the specimen signatures, released he payment of the said forged cheques. On complaint, the signatures were got tested from Forensic laboratory whereby the signatures were found forged on the said cheques on account of tracing. Thus, due to gross negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,80,000/- and the same has not been refunded to him despite repeated requests; hence this complaint.

2) In the reply, opposite party no.1 pleaded that the complainant had lodged an FIR no. 427 dt. 21.9.20112 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC against the persons who had fraudulently presented the cheques and thus the present case is regarding cheating and forgery for which this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. OP no.2 also filed reply on the same footing that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. The complainant never intimated the Bank that the cheque book has been lost or mis-placed nor he requested to stop the payment. The payment of the cheques have been made as per rules and regulation and that too after confirming the signatures of the complainant on the cheques.

3) We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.

4) It is the case of forgery and cheating. The payment is alleged to have been withdrawn by using forged signatures on the cehques. The report of the FSL is also on the file. FIR no.427 also stands lodged in the matter. All these shows that the present case involves cheating and forgery by way of tracing the signatures on the cheques. A perusal of the contents of the FIR shows that two cheques were stolen from the cheque book by two unknown persons. Complainant is alleging serious allegations of fraud, cheating and forgery and on the basis of forged cheques having forged signatures, the opposite parties released the payment in question. The serious allegation of fraud, cheating and forgery so leveled cannot be determined in summary manner and thus the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Our view is supported by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munimahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC); New India Insurance Co. v. Hira Lal Ramesh, AIR (2008) SCC 2620; Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1996 AIR (SC) 2592; and decision of the Honble National Commission in the case of Lala Samachar Newspaper vs. General Manager Telephone, 1997 (1) CPJ

95 (NC). Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of law, if so advised , where the time spent by the complainant in this proceedings bonafidely may be set off as per provisions of Section

14 (2) of Limitation Act. Announced 30.01.2018. President, Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari. Member, DCDRF,Rewari.