Punjab National Bank vs RAM PIARE LAL JOSHI

DISTRICT Forum, Amritsar on April 6, 1998 allowed complaint filed by Ram Piare Lal Joshi with the direction to the opposite party Punjab National Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- illegally withdrawn from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant on a forged cheque alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of withdrawal till payment and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was also allowed. The Bank has challenged the aforesaid order in this appeal.

RAM Piare Lal Joshi, the complainant, was having Bank Account No. 6189 with Punjab National Bank, Jandiala Guru Branch, District Amritsar. On November 7, 1997, he withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from his account, however, by mistake left his Pass Book and Cheque Book at the Bank premises or otherwise lost. It was on January 20, 1998 when he wanted to withdraw more amount from the account that the missing of the Cheque Book and Pass Book came to his notice. He obtained a duplicate Cheque Book from the Bank and when he wanted to withdraw some amount, he came to know that Bank had made payment of Rs. 50,000/- as back as December 18, 1997 vide cheque No. 398829 under the forged signatures that he approached the District Forum for the relief. The Bank contested the complaint and several pleas were taken. The complainant was not a consumer. The payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made on the cheque purporting to have been drawn by the complainant. Since it was a Pension Account, the Bank was merely acting as an agent for crediting pension as the complainant had retired as Assistant Food and Supply Officer. Hence the complainant was not a consumer qua the aforesaid Bank account. With regard to payment of Rs. 50,000/-, it was further asserted that the same was made by the concerned official in due course of business of the Bank after exercising due diligence and care. The signatures on the said cheque were also compared by Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Accountant of the Bank who was competent person to pass the payment. Such complicated questions were to be raised in the Civil Court and not before the FORA. The comparison of the signatures on the cheque was made with the specimen signatures in the Bank record. The complainant himself was negligent in loosing the Cheque Book and the Pass Book. The complaint was barred by time. The complainant produced his affidavit whereas on the other hand affidavit of Jaswant Singh, Teller of the Bank; Manjit Chugh, Clerk-cum-Officiating Teller; Mohinder Singh, Manager; Kartar Singh, officiating Clerk; Rajesh Mohan Bhagat, Clerk-cum-Cashier; and Ashok Kumar Verma, Accountant were produced alongwith photocopies of the cheque for Rs. 3,000/-, photostat copy of the disputed cheque, photocopy of the specimen signatures and statement of account of the complainant. The statement of RAM Piare Lal Joshi, complainant, was recorded by the Forum and he was cross-examined by the opposite party. Some photocopies of the disputed documents alongwith negatives were also brought on the record. On the evidence aforesaid, the impugned order was passed. Before questions of law raised by Counsel for the Bank are adverted to, it is necessary to decide the case on facts and evidence produced. It is only thereafter that the law will be applied to the facts of the case. In appeal, the only disputed question of fact is as to whether the Bank made payment of Rs. 50,000/- on the forged cheque referred to above, in other words, whether bona fide the Bank made the payment after comparing signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit specifically stated that under the forged cheque, payment was made by the Bank to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- at the relevant time. The complainant was not in town and had gone to Amritsar and was staying there with his son in connection with the performance of his eye operation. He was operated upon on January 7, 1998. Thus, short question for consideration is whether the Bank has produced any cogent evidence to the contrary or in support of its plea of bona fide comparing the signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant already with the Bank. As far as affidavits of all other persons, as referred to above except Ashok Kumar Verma, are concerned, they are not directly on the point in issue as they had not said that they had compared signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant before payment was made by the Bank. Thus, it is only the evidence of Ashok Kumar Verma which is relevant. Before reference is made to the same, the plea of the Bank may again be recapitulated in order to appreciate the evidence. The plea is that disputed signatures on the cheque purported to be that of Ram Piare Lal Joshi, the complainant. It is obvious that when the Bank has to make the payment of any cheque, it has to compare alleged signatures of the depositor (drawal). From that alone it cannot be said that signatures purporting to be that of complainant were genuine or forged. No specific plea was taken in the written statement filed by the Bank who was in possession of the disputed cheque and the specimen signatures that they were tallying or not. Ashok Kumar Verma in his affidavit referred to the previous withdrawal of Rs. 3,000/- by the complainant himself and that subsequent payment made under the disputed cheque on December 18, 1997 of Rs. 50,000/-. In para 2 of the affidavit, he stated that the aforesaid cheque purported to have been signed by Ram Piare Lal Joshi in favour of self or bearer. There was over-writing in the date which was also attested under the signatures of Ram Piare Lal Joshi. The proceeds of the said cheque were paid to Raju Kumar/Rajin Kumar who presented the cheque. The significant sentence that follows is as under : "The payment of the said cheque was passed by me in due course of the business of the Bank after visual comparison of the signatures of the drawer/pension account holder Sh. Ram Piare Lal Joshi, with his specimen signatures on Bank record. Due diligence is per bank''s instructions was exercised by me at the time of passing of the payment of the said cheque."

This affidavit is dated March 11, 1998 and was attested by the Oath Commissioner on March 16, 1998. The stamp paper of Rs. 10/- on which the affidavit was prepared as per endorsement on stamp paper was purchased on March 11, 1998. If the deponent Ashok Kumar Verma signed the affidavit on March 11, 1998 as it shows, obviously the certificate of Oath Commissioner made on March 16, 1998 is incorrect. This is not the solitary instance of affidavit attested by the Oath Commissioner which is produced before the FORA. The other affidavits produced on the record also tell the same story. They purport to have been attested on March 16, 1998 by the Oath Commissioner but executed prior thereto, i.e. March 11 and March 14 of 1998. Apart from the above fact that such affidavits cannot be treated as evidence, there is addition of the underlined words, as emphasis supplied above, in the affidavit which is not authenticated by the deponent or by the Oath Commissioner. That being the position, the Bank has utterly failed to prove that payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made after its employees including Ashok Kumar Verma verified genuineness of the signatures on the disputed cheque with the specimen signatures with the Bank. May be after the affidavit was prepared and attested, it was thought proper to make it in accordance with the plea taken in the written statement where factum of comparison of the signatures with the specimen signatures was also mentioned, otherwise the plea was only that signatures are of Ram Piare Lal Joshi on the disputed cheque which were stated to be purporting to be his. In view of the plea and the evidence referred to above, there is no question of getting any Hand Writing Expert''s opinion on the record. It may be observed that at the fag end of the trial before the District Forum, this matter was brought to the notice of the District Forum and by passing an order on the proceedings dated April 1, 1998 it was not considered appropriate to obtain opinion of the Hand Writing Expert. No doubt, it was also observed by the District Forum in this order that two signatures were quite ostensibly different from the visual comparison. Since there was no plea of the Bank that signatures on the disputed cheque were genuine and that the evidence of the Bank also did not refer the same, there was no need to get the opinion of any Hand Writing Expert. It is in this very context that cross-examination of the complainant conducted on behalf of the Bank is required to be noticed. Although in the affidavit the complainant has specifically stated that the payment had been withdrawn on the basis of his forged signatures using the cheque from the lost cheque book, this part of the statement of Ram Piare Lal, the complainant, was not challenged as such during cross-examination.

MR. H.R. Bansal, learned Counsel for the Bank has argued that the District Forum should not have acted as an expert to compare the signatures on the disputed cheque with the specimen signatures of the complainant with the Bank. In respect of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of National Commission in Canara Bank v. Uppal Brass Industries & Ors., II (1997) CPJ 143 (NC)=1996 (2) CON.LT 86, and United Commercial Bank v. Mahendra Popatlal Vora, I (1995) CPJ 83 (NC)=1995 (1) CPC 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision of National Commission in Dr. Moti Lal Jain & Ors. v. Marudhar Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., I (1996) CPJ 242 (NC), that simply alleging fraud in the complaint would not oust the jurisdiction of the FORA and that expert opinion is not required in all cases. It is not necessary to refer to the judgments in detail as cited by Counsel for the parties for the simple reason that on facts it has been held as above that neither there was plea of the Bank that the signatures of the complainant on the cheque tallied with the specimen signatures nor the evidence of the complainant that his signatures were forged on the disputed cheque was specifically challenged during cross-examination. Thus, primarily it was a question of fact and not a question of law. Learned Counsel for the Bank has argued that the District Forum was not justified in granting double compensation, one in the form of grant of interest and the other consolidated amount of Rs. 5,000/-. There is merit in this contention. Compensation is allowed under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act with respect to the loss suffered by the complainant on account of negligent act of the opposite party. Since the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/- illegally withdrawn from his Bank account which he could otherwise utilise, the grant of 18% interest on money value is generally considered reasonable compensation in the absence of proof of any specific loss suffered by the complainant. The District Forum was not justified in granting an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/-, after granting interest, as compensation. To that extent, the order of the District forum requires modification and the complainant is held to be entitled to interest as compensation @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 5,000/-.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District FORum is modified. The Bank would pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with 18% interest thereon w.e.f. date of withdrawal till payment alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/- as directed by the District FORum. Appeal allowed.