IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 15.02.2013 Date of hearing: 03.08.2022 Date of Decision: 12.10.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO. 146/2013 IN THE MATTER OF SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, GULMOHAR PARK BRANCH, NEW DELHI (Through: Mr. Ankur Aggarwal, Advocate)

…APPELLANT VERSUS MS. GEETA BALODI, W/O MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR, R/O FLAT NO.36-A, BLOCK – D-II/A, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI ... RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

“The Complainant was holding an account bearing 10428 with the OP Central Bank of India, Gulmohar Park Branch, New Delhi. On 03.01.2005, when the Complainant visited the bank to withdraw some money from her account, she came to know that an amount of Rs. 1,80,0000/- i.e. Rs.85,000/- vide cheque No.761857 dated 20.11.2004 drawn at Central Bank of India, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi and Rs.95,000/- vide cheque No.761853 dated 01.12.2004 drawn at Central Bank of India, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi were withdrawn from her account by a unknown person who, allegedly conspired with the official of the OP. She approached the bank with the request for reversal of entry of the said amount and also lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi. The police investigated and filed an un-trace report. The bank declined to reverse the amount to the Complainant alleging that there was no fault or negligent on the part of the bank or its official in discharging their duties. Hence, the Complainant brought her complaint before this Forum seeking directions against the OP to refund the amount of the cheque from the data of withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from her account. The Complainant also claimed damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lac for mental agony.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated

11.09.2012, whereby it held as under:

“8. On being given our thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced by the counsel for Complainant, we are of the opinion that there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the OP bank. Because the cheques in question were not bearing genuine signature of the Complainant. Rather, the payment was given to the trickster/imposter on the fake signature. FSL report dated 28.02.2007 and 31.07.2006 clearly shows that the disputed signature on the cheque were not of the person who made specimen writing. In other words, the cheques were not bearing the genuine signature of the Complainant. The Complainant made the report to the police which investigated the case but could not find out the real culprit and, therefore, it filed its untrace report which was ultimately accepted by the illaqa M.M. The Complainant made a complaint before the Ombudsman and when she could not find any relief therefrom too then she brought her complaint before this forum.

9. It is a settled principle of law, "when a cheque duly signed by customer is presented before the bank with whom the customer has an account, there is mandate on the bank to pay the amount covered by the cheque. However, if the signature on the cheque is not genuine, then there is no mandate on the bank to honour the cheque. The bank, when it makes payment on such a cheque, cannot resist the claim of the customer with the defence of negligence on his part such as leaving the cheque book carelessly so that third parties would easily get hold of it. This is because a document in cheque form, on which the customer's name as drawer is forged, is a mere nullity. The bank can succeed only when its established adoption or estoppel". Reference in this connection may be had to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported as Canara Bank Vs Canara Sales Corporation & Another, AIR 1987 SC

1603.

10. Out