BANK OF BARODA vs RAMGOPAL AGARWAL

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against an order dated 25. 1. 2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in Complaint No. 603/2005 whereby an application of the petitioner for permitting cross-examination of a handwriting expert was rejected.

THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the complainant had a current bank account with the petitioner. On going through his account, the complainant non-petitioner came to know that a cheque dated 9. 7. 2000 for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs had been encashed and debited from his account even though he had not issued such a cheque. It conspired that one Hari Shanker Agarwal who was his Munim had withdrawn this amount by committing forgery on the cheque. He accordingly filed a FIR with the Manak Chowk Police Station at Jaipur. During the course of investigation, the police sent the cheque and admitted signatures of the said Hari Shanker Agarwal, as also the complainant, for the purpose of determining the authorship of the cheque to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Dr. D. C. Sethi, Deputy Director of the said laboratory had given a report stating that the signatures on the cheque in question were similar to the signatures of Mr. Hari Shanker Agarwal. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint in the Forum below alleging that the Bank had committed deficiency in service by not properly tallying his signatures on the cheque with his specimen signatures and as a result of this he claimed damages amounting to Rs. 6,50,000 from the bank for the loss sustained by him. During the trial of this complaint in the Forum below, the petitioner moved an application on 19. 9. 2006 and submitted that the handwriting expert has not tallied the signatures on the cheque in question with the specimen signatures of the complainant which are with the Bank and the report dated 31. 12. 2001 sent by the State Forensic Science Laboratory was ambiguous. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the said expert may be summoned and he may be permitted to cross-examine him.

The non-applicant filed a reply to this application and submitted that there is no ambiguity and that the report of the handwriting expert is in accordance with law.

AFTER hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum rejected the application of the petitioner and passed the following order: "hindi Matter omitted" aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has come up before us in revision. We have heard the arguments and submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties.

IT is true that the Consumer Protection Act provides cheap and quick redressal of genuine consumer grievances but at the same time the principles of natural justice requires that both the parties should be given equal opportunity to prove their case. For this purpose, in given circumstances, a party may be permitted to cross-examine a witness but this right cannot be invoked as a matter of right and the Consumer Fora is bound to go into the facts of the case in order to find out whether the prayer is justified and interest of justice will suffer in absence of such a cross-examination. As held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of Transmission Corporation of A. P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, II (2006) SLT 723=ii (2006) CLT 75 (SC)= (2006) 3 SCC 74, there can be no rule of universal application that whenever any statement is pressed into service for adjudication, a right of cross-examination is in built. In order to establish that the cross-examination is necessary, the consumer has to make out a case for the same and an application for cross-examination cannot be filed in a routine manner. In the present case, the question for adjudication before the Forum below is whether the signatures of the complainant on the cheque for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs is similar to his specimen signatures obtaining with the Bank and whether there was any deficiency on the part of the petitioner Bank in comparing the signatures of the complainant on visual comparison. As the matter is sub judice before the Forum below, we would not like to comment upon the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in extenso as by doing so, the case of one or the other party would be prejudiced. We would only point out that it appears that the specimen signatures of the complainant which are recorded in the petitioner Bank were not sent to the handwriting expert and although the specimen signatures of the complainant Mr. Ram Gopal Agarwal were forwarded by the police to the handwriting expert, the expert has not given any opinion on the signatures of the complainant. As such, on the face of it, the expert report seems to be ambiguous.

UNDER these circumstances, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount involved and the fact that an employee of the complainant is alleged to be involved in committing forgery for which a criminal case is pending in a Criminal Court, it would certainly meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is allowed to cross-examine Dr. D. C. Sethi, Deputy Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on his report dated 31. 12. 2001 which is otherwise admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By permitting such a cross-examination, the true facts would be placed before the Forum below which would help the Forum in deciding the controversy involved in this case.

THERE is yet another reason for setting aside the impugned order of the Forum below. The learned District Forum has not passed a speaking order and the absence of reason has rendered the impugned order not sustainable. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the Forum below has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it and has acted with material irregularity and as such the revision petition deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25. 1. 2007 is set aside and the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur is directed to permit the petitioner-Bank to cross-examine Dr. D. C. Sethi, Deputy Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, on his report dated 31. 12. 2001, at the expense of the petitioner-Bank. Both the parties are also directed to appear before the Forum below on 8th August, 2007 for the purposes of receiving the directions of that Forum as to further proceedings in the complaint. No costs. Revision Petition allowed.