The court ruled that banks must verify signatures diligently, as failure constitutes a deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.

1. This revision petition has been filed under S.21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 6.7.2010 of the State Commission in appeal No. 805 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 29.5.2006 of the District Commission in complaint No. 193 of 2005.

2. We have perused the record and have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party bank (the petitioner herein).
Learned proxy Counsel is present for the complainant society (the respondent herein), its learned Counsel is not available to argue on its behalf.

3. Briefly, the society, under the control of the state government, maintained its savings bank account with the bank. The account was being operated under the joint signatures of the District Development Officer and the Deputy District Continuous Education Officer. In the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 one senior clerk of the society, who was maintaining its books of accounts and the cheque - books, withdrew a total amount of Rs.13,72,629 in cash through 16 cheques by forging the signatures of the two joint authorised signatories. A criminal complaint was lodged by the society with the police against the concerned senior clerk. Thereafter, after consultations with the legal department and with the government Advocate(s), the instant consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission on 4.5.2005.
The District Commission vide its Order dated 29.5.2006 allowed the complaint. It ordered that the total amount of Rs.13,72,629 of the said 16 cheques be paid by the bank to the society with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of realization. It also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000 towards cost of litigation.
The bank appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 6.7.2010 dismissed the appeal.
Both the District Commission and the State Commission arrived at findings that the signatures on the concerned 16 cheques were forged. As such this revision has been preferred apropos concurrent findings of facts by the forum of original jurisdiction and the forum of appellate jurisdiction.

4. The learned Counsel for the bank submits that the last (i.e. the 16th) cheque with forged signatures was encashed on 7.2.2002 but the complaint was filed on 4.5.2005 after a period of about 3 years and 3 months. The submission is that the consumer complaint was barred by limitation.
We however see that the District Commission has specifically condoned the delay (" - - - At the time of filing the complaint, an application was made to condone the delay, the said application and all the record was taken into consideration and this forum has condone the delay and the complaint was registered (admitted). - - - ")
We may also note here that the limitation period prescribed under Sub-section (1) of S.24A of the Act 1986 is two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. However Sub-section (2) allows for condoning the delay, for sufficient cause. In the instant case a criminal complaint was first filed against the concerned senior clerk, then the legal department and the government Advocate(s) were consulted regarding filing of the consumer complaint, the pecuniary loss suffered by the society had not been made good by the bank. It appears that sufficient cause to condone the delay was readily forthcoming, and as such the delay was not found fatal to the case. We see no strong reason to take a different view of the matter relating to this aspect.

5. Learned Counsel for the bank further submits that statements made under S.161 of the CrPC were also inter alia considered by the District Commission, though they ought to have been kept out of consideration being inadmissible in evidence.
In the present con