SANDEEP KUMAR TANDONAppella vs Punjab National Bank

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant, assailing the order of District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi dated 25.8.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 1042/99 entitled Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon v. Punjab National Bank.2. The relevant facts, in brief are that the appellant was maintaining two accounts with the respondent Bank, Current Account No. 249 in the name of M/s. Sandeep Kumar and Associates (Prop. Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon) and Saving Bank Account No. 3335 in the name of Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon. The appellant had issued two cheques on 2.6.1997, one for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on his Current Account No. 249 and another for Rs. 8,000/- drawn on his Saving Bank Account No. 3335 and handed them to his employee Shri Kageshwar Senapati for encashment. However, the said employee of the respondent did not return with the money so withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant met the Manager of the respondent Bank at the Extension Counter, Salwan Public Shool, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on 3.6.1997 and came to know that the cheque bearing No. 419667 issued for an amount of Rs. 8,000/- had been fraudulently and dishonestly tampered with by changing the amount of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- and despite the visible alteration in the amount the cheque in question was passed by the respondent Bank without any authentication from the appellant. As such the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for direction to the respondent to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 28,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 2.6.1997 till the date of actual realization together with damages of Rs. 10,000/- as well as costs.

A registered notice of the complaint was issued to the respondent by the learned District Forum and since the respondent did not appear before the District Forum, despite notice, the respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order/proceedings dated 14.8.2000. On the basis of the material on record the learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground that it was difficult to hold the respondent or its employees guilty of deficiency in service and the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable under the Act.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission.

WE have carefully perused the documents/material on record as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. Vide impugned order, it has been held by the learned District Forum that in the absence of cheques in question and the fact that the matter was of criminal nature and was under investigation by the police, it could not be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent or its employees. However, the respondent has now appeared before this Commission and has also placed on record the relevant two cheques. The moot question for decision before us is as to whether the cheque in question has been forged and whether despite the alleged material and apparent alteration the employees of the respondent have been negligent in honouring it. In this regard, the Honble National Commission in case D. Sundareson, Senior Manager, Canara Bank and Another v. R.K. Singhal, 1986-96 Consumer Cases 2635 (NS), placing reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in case Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. Automotive Engineering Company, (1993) 2 SCC 97, and has held: The District Forum allowed the complaint and the appeal of the Bank was dismissed as already noticed. WE refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective versions as we are inclined to remand the case. The impugned orders suffer from material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction as the Forums below are oblivious of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. Automotive Engineering Co., (1993) 2 SCC 97, wherein it was held Under Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant-bank had a liability to honour the said cheque and make payment if the cheque was otherwise in order. Payment in due course under Section 10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act means payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence. In the facts of the case, there was no occasion to doubt about the genuineness of the cheque from the apparent tenor of the instrument. There is nothing on record from which it can be held that the payment of the said cheque has not been made in good faith. Although no strait-jacket formula can be laid down to cover each case of negligence of a Banker and the question of negligence requires to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case, it does not appear to us that the appellant-Bank can be held to be guilty of negligence simply because an ultraviolet ray lamp was not kept in the branch and the cheque in question was not subjected under the ultraviolet ray lamp. Apart from it both the District Forum as well as the State Commission themselves examined the disputed specimen signatures and recorded the finding of the forgery inferring that the Bank officials could have easily detected the forgery. This Commission, as well as the Supreme Court have frowned upon this practice adopted by some Courts. The cases should be decided on the basis of opinion of the experts and other evidence adduced on record. In this case expert opinion though obtained was not legally tendered. (Emphasis supplied)

FURTHERMORE, in a late decision the Honble Supreme Court in case entitled Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported as III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714, has gone a step further to hold that the redressal agencies under the Act are competent to decide even complicated and complex questions of fact and law. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court as well as, that of the Apex Commission, it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, that the present case is remanded back to the concerned District Forum with the directions to decide the same on merits after perusing the cheque in question as well as other material placed on record by both the parties and if need be, after obtaining expert opinion. Accordingly, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is allowed to the extent that the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the concerned District Forum with the directions that the matter in view of our above observations be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. Ordered accordingly.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed.