Umesh Ohri vs ICICI BANK LTD

THE complainant/petitioner is holding a saving bank account with the opposite party, ICICI Bank at Jalandhar. The complainant/petitioner according to the bank, was issued a cheque book for the purpose of facilitating withdrawals from the saving bank account which he had opened with the bank. The case of the complainant according to his counsel is that the aforesaid cheque book was never received by it, who did not even apply for issue of the cheque book. Three cheques of Rs. 50,000/ - each were presented to the bank, two cheques on 26.10.2007 and one on 27.10.2007. Since the cheques purported to be drawn on self, cash payment for those cheques were made. We would like to note here that the name of the complainant/petitioner was printed on the cheques, which were presented to the bank, alongwith his account number.

THE case of the complainant being that he never received a cheque book from the bank and therefore he had no occasion to issue the aforesaid cheques, he approached the concerned District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the ICICI Bank.

THE complaint was resisted by the bank on several grounds. It was stated in the reply that the payment was made to the bearer of the cheque after comparing the signatures on them with the standard signatures of the complainant with the bank and in good faith and bona fide discharge of duties. As regards the cheque book, it was stated in the reply that the same was issued to the complainant in the month of July, 2007. Vide its order dated 08.02.2010, the District Forum directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 5,000/ -.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 21.10.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the bank and dismissed the complaint.

IT would thus be seen that the plea taken by the complainant/petitioner is that the cheques paid by the bank did not bear his signatures, meaning thereby that the aforesaid cheques were forged documents. If somebody forged the signatures of the complainant on the cheques and thereafter got them encashed from the bank, it would also amount to cheating using the forged documents for the purpose. If the cheque book was not received by the complainant there could also be a possible criminal conspiracy involving one or more bank officials. This is more so, when the disputed signatures are not wholly different from the standard signatures of the account holder. Thus, there were serious allegations of forgery and cheating in the complaint filed by the petitioner. The Consumer Forum which follows a summary procedure for deciding the complaints filed before it, is not a proper forum to adjudicate on such serious allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating etc. since it would require recording extensive evidence including the opinion of handwriting expert, to decide whether the questioned signatures were actually made by the complainant or not.

THIS is also the case of the bank that the cheque book from which cheques in question were taken out and used was duly sent to the complainant and was received by one Sh. Sant Ram on his behalf. Ex. C6 is the document regarding mobile number of the complainant and as noted by the State Commission the name of Sh. Sant Ram is also recorded on it. Therefore, Court/Forum which is called upon to adjudicate on the issues involving in this complaint will also have to record evidence to find out whether the cheque in question was received by Sh. Sant Ram and if so, whether he was authorised to receive the said cheque book on behalf of the complainant. The aforesaid exercise cannot be undertaken in a summary procedure adopted by a Consumer Forum. Therefore, in our view, it was not proper for the District Forum to go into the questions involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating involved in this case and take it upon itself to adjudicate upon the said issues. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, make it clear that dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of the complainant/petitioner approaching a Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance.