VIPIN RAMNILAL DHRUV vs WARDHA NAGRI SAHAKARI ADHIKOSH (BANK)

NONE is present on behalf of the appellant. This is a consistent position even in the past. The appeal has been filed in the year 1998 in consumer dispute of the year 1994. However, no steps have been taken by and on behalf of the appellant till date to have the matter further processed and diligently prosecuted as per prevalent practice and for that matter even no application was moved to have the matter placed for admission hearing.

THAT being so, under directions of this Commission, office has twice intimated the appellant about the dates of admission hearing. Firstly, by notice dated 27th December, 1999 intimating the date of admission hearing of 12th January, 2000. However, none remained present. Thereafter appellant was reminded on 7th February, 2001 and on 9th August, 2001 but the same position. On 19th April, 2002 this office again intimated the adjourned date of admission hearing being 12th June, 2002 to the appellant, but there is no response. Today also the same position.

That being so, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on consideration of material available before us in the appeal paper book.

THE appellant herein is the original complainant in the aforesaid complaint and against the order dated 6th February, 1998 passed by the District Forum dismissing his complaint, that this appeal has been filed. Few Relevant Facts : (Hereinafter the appellant is referred to as "complainant" and respondent as "Bank" for brevity''s sake). It is noticed that the complainant is a businessman having Current Account with the Bank and complaint was filed against the Bank with a grievance that the Bank had improperly and wrongfully made the payment from his account under the cheque which was a stolen cheque.

THE Bank in response, denied the same asserting that the cheque in question was issued by the complainant from the cheque book supplied to him by it and also bore the signature of the complainant and the same tallied with the specimen signature furnished by him to the Bank and which was with it in his record and as the signature tallied after verification, cheque was honoured. The District Forum examining the rival contentions of the parties in the light of grievance of the complainant and accepted defence of the Bank and in particular complainant himself admitting that he used to keep blank cheques signed in his office and such cheque book was stolen and thus it was mis-used. However, there was no intimation about the alleged theft of the cheque book in question to the Bank. The District Forum noticed all these facts and on consideration thereof held that Bank cannot be held as negligent in honouring the cheque in question and we are in agreement with the findings as rendered. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. Office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties. Appeal dismissed.