Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member
Mansinghka Agencies Proprietor Smt. Santosh Mansinghka – Petitioner
versus
Bank of India and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.775 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 05/03/2020 in Appeal No.1039/2019 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 4.3.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Banking Service – Encashment of cheque – Manipulation – Scope – A cheque issued by the petitioner favouring Dainik Bhaskar for Rs. 399 was paid by opposite party to some other party for Rs.4,95,000/- – Some lapse had taken place on part of opposite party – District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 4,95,000/- – State Commission set aside the order and remitted back the matter to District Forum for consideration afresh – And also directed to implead the party i.e., beneficiary of cheque as respondent No.4 – Hence this revision of the case to District Forum by the State Commission is justified or not ? – State Commission had taken the note of the possible fraud and collusion amongst of the complainant and others and thus found it appropriate to remand the matter to District Forum – Matter is not simply the violation of certain security protocol as provided in RBI guidelines – Remand of matter upheld.
Held: After hearing arguments and considering the record, it is clear that the only issue before the National Commission in this revision petition is whether or not, remand of the case to the District Forum by the State Commission, is justified or not. It would be useful to reproduce the last but one para of the State Commission’s order. It would be clear from a plain reading of the order above that the State Commission has taken due note of the possible fraud, forgery, collusion amongst the complainant and others and had, on a consideration of this aspect, thought it appropriate to remand the matter to the District Forum, directing impleading Suresh Kumar Meena as a necessary party and thereafter proceeding as per rules.
I am also of the considered view that it is not a simple matter of the opposite party Bank being held liable for deficiency in service on the ground that it had failed to carry out certain security protocol as provided in the RBI guidelines. Had it been so, there would have been much substance in the case of the complainant and the matter could have been decided as it has been by the District Forum. However, it is clearly not so. And it is this aspect of the case which seems to have weighed with the State Commission in passing the impugned order and directing the matter to be sent back to the District Forum for consideration afresh after impleading Suresh Kumar Meena.
During arguments, both counsels had alluded to the possibility of use of magic ink as a possible explanation for the cheque to have got magically transformed from Rs.399/- payable to Dainik Bhaskar to Rs.4,95,000/- payable to Suresh Kumar Meena. The fact that this did happen and the fact that the complainant had himself willingly signed the cheque at the behest of admittedly two unknown persons while letting them fill up the rest gives rise to a lot of doubt and changes the complexion of this consumer complaint, from being a simple case of deficiency in service to a far more complex matter involving fraud, forgery, collusion and so on. If so, it is necessary that the matter be a subject of fresh consideration by the District Forum, after impleading Sri Suresh Kumar Meena. In view of the discussion above, after due consideration, this revision petition fails and the order of the State Commission is upheld. No order as to costs. (Paras 7 to 12)
Result: Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—Under challenge in this Revision Petition No.775 of 2020 is the impugned order dated 5.3.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1- Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.1039 of 2019 order. Vide this order, the State Commission had set aside the order dated 4.9.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (for short, ‘District Forum’), directing the case to be sent back to the District Forum, for consideration after serving notice to Suresh Kumar Meena, to be impleaded as respondent no. 4.
2. Arguments were heard on 2.3.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant chiefly made the case that the respondent - Bank of India had failed to comply with guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in respect of providing safe and secure banking service to the petitioner/complainant-Mansinghka Agencies Proprietor Mrs. Santosh Mansinghka (‘complainant’, hereafter). His case on facts was that on 28.8.2015, a cheque issued by the petitioner favouring Dainik Bhaskar for Rs.399 was processed and paid by the opposite party for Rs.4,95,000/- to one Suresh Kumar Meena. FIR was immediately lodged with police station Bhilwara on 28.8.2015: a representation was also presented to the opposite party on 31.8.2015. On reply dated 20.10.2015 to an RTI application filed by the complainant, it was admitted that some lapse had taken place on the part of the opposite party in respect of processing the same for payment viz. (i) cheque above Rs.1 Lakh must be scrutinized under UV lamp; (ii) when cheque appeared to be suspicious, Bank must contact account holder before making payment; (iii) Bank must verify the identity of all walk-in consumers, none of which was done. The final report of the police investigation also found that an unknown person using a fraud photocopy of the ID of one Suresh Kumar Meena had obtained payment of the cheque and that this became possible because bank employees did not match the photo copy of ID against the original ID; further, the police report stated that the criminal had not been found. The complainant thereafter filed consumer complaint No.292 of 2016 before the District Forum. The District Forum directed examination of the subject cheque by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). FSL report concluded that the original cheque was for Rs.399/- in the name of Dainik Bhaskar which was altered to Suresh Kumar Meena for a sum of Rs.4,95,000. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-Bank to pay Rs.4,95,000/- with 9% interest per annum from 9.7.2016 till payment along with Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- for legal expenses. This order of the District Forum was then set aside by the State Commission as noted above.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that this was a complaint against lapses qua not providing secure banking service as per guidelines of the RBI. He argued that it had been admitted in the written version filed by the opposite party that UV test was not conducted and the ground taken therein was that UV test was not required since there was no reason to suspect and the cheque had been encashed in good faith. He however argued that this whole matter of the suspicious nature of the cheque was also examined by the FSL, Jaipur and in its report dated 15.4.2019, it was clearly found that the cheque had been altered and the same had been allowed for payment by the opposite party. Had the opposite party followed the security guidelines of the RBI, this fraudulent payment would not have been made.
4. Drawing attention to the impugned order of the State Commission, to the last but one para (page 48), he submitted that the State Commission came to an incorrect finding viz. “the said cheque was drawn in the name of Suresh Kumar Meena and it was paid to Suresh Kumar Meena. He also has his signature on the back of the cheque and he had signed and s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
