Mr. S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member —The de facto complainant N. Venkanna was operating a saving bank account No. 21162. A cheque book was issued to him but according to him it was lost. The O.P. Bank refused to issue him a duplicate cheque book. He withdrew an amount of Rs. 150 from the Bank on 21.12.1993 and Rs. 80 on 31.12.1993 by submitting withdrawal form. He issued a cheque for payment to self bearing No. 968266 dated 17.1.1994 for payment of Rs. 35,000 but the cheque was dishonoured for it was alleged that a sum of Rs. 34,000 had already been withdrawn by him on 12.1.1994 by using withdrawal form. The complainant claimed that he had not withdrawn Rs. 34,000 and he was not even present in Hyderabad City on that date. The signatures on the withdrawal form were forged. The complaint was filed through the Dilsukhnagar Consumers Council.

2. The opposite party/Bank resisted the claim on the ground that on presentation of the withdrawal form as well as the pass book, the amount was paid, signatures on the withdrawal form were tallied with his specimen signatures. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

3. During the pendency of the case, the District Forum took three specimen signatures of the complainant and obtained opinion of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of Andhara Pradesh, Hyderabad. According to the opinion of the expert, the admitted signatures and disputed signatures were of two different persons.

4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and gave their finding that the complainant was negligent in regard to the loss of the pass book and, therefore, awarded 50% amount of the loss with interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.1.1994 till the date of payment and further compensation of Rs. 5,000 with cost of Rs. 500.

5. The complainant through Dilsukhnagar Consumers Council filed an appeal. On appeal, the State Commission confirmed the view taken by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed.

7. Both the fora below have given two findings of facts: (i) the signatures on the withdrawal form dated 12.1.1994 were not that of the petitioner, and (ii) the complainant has also contributed to the negligence in making payment by not keeping the passbook in safe custody. It is also evident that though the second cheque book was refused to be issued probably the petitioner found the cheque book and issued a cheque bearing No. 968266 dated 12.1.1994.

8. If the withdrawal form is produced along with passbook it would strengthen the prima facie view to a limited extent that the person who is producing the withdrawal form would be the account holder and would be the same and simple resemblance with the original signatures may lead a Bank/official to bona fide belief that the person withdrawing the amount, was the account holder himself.

9. The question is: Does it absolve a banker from making payment to a wrong person by rushing to clear the payment on the basis of a forged withdrawal form? It is no more in dispute that the withdrawal form was not signed by the complainant in terms of the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. The fact that the petitioner had not kept his passbook in a safe custody might have contributed to the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank official in not meticulously comparing with the signatures of the complainant. One would also not be oblivious about minor changes in signatures which do occur time and again between the signatures of the same person made at different times and the specimen signatures, signature on the withdrawal form and the cheque. It may also be true that to a limited extent the Bank could not be held to be guilty of negligence simply because an ultraviolet ray lamp was not kept in the branch and the cheque in question could not be subjected under the ultraviolet ray lamp. Despite this, we feel that the Bank official must not r