IMPORTANT POINT
In case cheque is signed by bank holder, it is produced and encashed, no fault can be attributed on part of bank.

J.M. Malim, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by Sh.N.P. Mahadevan, the complainant, who is working as a Senior Manager (Public Relations) with M/s. Sundaram Clayton Co. Ltd., a Chennai based Public Ltd., Company. The complainant is a Savings Bank account holder with the respondent, Central Bank of India.

2. One morning, he checked his account book and was shocked to see a debit entry in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- pertaining to 14.12.2002, in favour of one Kamalapathy. He approached the Bank where it transpired that cheque bearing No.645530 pertaining to the complainant’s SB A/c No. 6204 for Rs. 1,00,000/- was presented for clearing through Canara Bank, Chennai by one Kamalapathy, who was working as a contract security watchman with the employer of the complainant till 12.12.2002. The complainant contends that he never issued the said cheque. It also came to light that two other cheque leaves bearing Nos. 645529 and 645530 were also missing. The Bank was apprised of all these facts. This also came to light that his signatures were forged and they differed from the signatures of the complainant’s, furnished to the Bank. However, the said cheque bore the rubber stamp of his office. The stand set up by the complainant was that he never puts his official stamp on the cheques issued from his personal account. The grouse of the complainant is that in view of the extraordinary and unusual manner in which the cheque had been forged and signed, the Bank could have easily detected the fraud and intimated the complainant about the same, particularly, when the cheque was a high valued cheque. It is alleged that the Bank had cleared the cheque in undue haste, without verifying the specimen signatures available with them and against all banking norms. The complainant also lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, on 24.12.2002.

3. The police arrested Kamalapathy and recovered various articles from him, which included Rs. 41,06,000/- in cash, One Onida TV with VCD, Two pairs of Kolusu and metti, gold ornaments, stabilizer, remote control, gas cylinder and clothes. The said property was returned to the complainant vide the order passed by the Magistrate, on 17.03.2003. All the items were recovered and handed over to the complainant, except gas cylinder and clothes, which the complainant refused to accept. Subsequently, he accepted the cash only, while the other articles are lying with the police.

4. It is contended that the balance loss has been suffered by the complainant in the sum of Rs.58,400/-. The complainant does not need other articles which were recovered from Kamalapathy. Ultimately, the instant complaint was filed with the District Forum wherein a sum of Rs.58,400/-, compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.25,000 were claimed.

5. The District Forum allowed the complaint.

6. Aggrieved by that order, Central Bank of India, the respondent, preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the following conclusions. There was a theft in the office of the complainant. The theft was committed by the security-watchman, who left the service on the next following day. The forgery does not stand proved. The cheque was signed by the complainant himself. Again the complainant could have preserved the cheque, which was already signed by him. Consequently, the appeal was accepted.

7. This case is pending before this Commission for the last more than one year. Time and again, adjournments were granted by the Registry, to the petitioner, to remove the defects. But the defects were not removed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was taking treatment in USA, but he was unable to contact him. Adjournment was granted as prayed and it was specifically mentioned that he can send the affidavit from USA itself, within a maximum period of one month. However, the needful could not be done.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner