IMPORTANT POINT
Verification of PAN - there is no requirement of verification of PAN details before encashing a cheque in a Bank.

ORDER

This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1734 of 2010 dated 05.07.2012 emerging from order in consumer complaint no. 239 of 2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bundi, Rajasthan (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 14.07.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that respondent no. 1 is the proprietor of M/s Ram Gopal Radhey Shyam who had a bank account no. 4089002100000079 with the petitioner with a multi-city cheque facility. The respondent no. 1 intimated the petitioner on 20.12.2005 that four unsigned cheques (nos. 657687, 657688, 657689 and 657690) were stolen from his cheque book by respondent no. 2 on 12.12.2005 for which an FIR No. 542/05 was lodged with the Police Station, Kotwali, Bundi. The petitioner issued instructions not to honour any of these cheques on 20.12.2005. However, cheque no 657687 for Rs.9,00,000/- had already been presented at a branch of the petitioner Bank in Bhopal and encashed on 15.12.2005. Based upon police enquiry in FIR 542/05 filed by the respondent no.1, Rs.6,91,000/- was recovered from the premises of respondent no. 2 who was a close associate of respondent no.1 and was visiting him on the day of the theft of the cheques. Respondent no. 1 filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the petitioner alleging deficiency in service in permitting the encashment of the cheque based on a forged signature and seeking refund of Rs.2,09,000/-. After hearing both parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that while a criminal case involving forgery was not tenable before it, there was no ground to establish deficiency in service by the petitioner/opposite party as the responsibility of safeguarding the cheques was that of the respondent no. 1/complainant. The District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service in the encashing of the cheque presented before it and therefore dismissed the complaint. Respondent approached the State Commission in appeal against this order which allowed the same and held that:—

Generally, at the time of making such big payment through bearer cheque Bank acts very carefully, but in present matter the payment making bank ought to have acted most carefully while making payment and further the check was of a firm of Bundi station and it was presented at Bhopal for payment, so it was natural for the Bank to be suspicious at the time of making payment whether a firm can issue bearer check for such a big amount or not and Bank ought to have sought information immediately. It was a big amount of Rs 9,00,000/-, so it was not possible to make payment without PAN number and in this way the Bank was not reasonably vigilant and careful while making payment. The Bank did not suspect the bearer cheque of such big amount when it is proved in police investigation and in FSLl report that the payment was withdrawn by forged documents and the police has recovered around Rs 7,00,000/-. In this matter we believe that if the Bank would have been a little careful in making payment of such big amount by bearer cheque, this incident would not have occurred. In this way, deficiency in service on the part of Bank is proved. The conclusion of learned district forum that complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service of the bank is not justified. Appeal is acceptable.

Accordingly this appeal is accepted. Order of learned District Forum is set aside. The complainant is entitled to recover the balance amount of cheque payment, which the police could not recover, from the respondent Bank. The payment of this amount shall be made by respondent Bank to the appellant within one month from the date of order. The complainant shall be entitled to recover Rs 20,000/- for mental torture and litigation expe