ORDER

1. By this judgement, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order date 13th, September 2019 passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, M- Block, First Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, in a complaint case no.1255/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case as per complaint are that the complainant was having a saving account no.207700101518296, with the opposite parties. On 26th September 2012, one Sh. Mehtab called the complainant on mobile and lured him that he would facilitate him in availing the home loan. Subsequently, a meeting was fixed on 28.09.2012 between the complainant and Mehtab where Mehtab sought documents from the complainant for processing the home loan. On the continuous persuasion of Mehtab, the complainant delivered two blank cancelled cheques, bearing no. 398666 and 398667 to him.

3. It was the case of the complainant that on 1st October 2012, he got information from one Mr. Hakim Athar that the cheque given to him was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund. The complainant immediately rushed to opposite parties and inquired about the dishonoured cheque. He was informed by the opposite parties that an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- was withdrawn by one Sh Ajith Singh. The complainant lodged a complaint at P. S Welcome Colony, North East, Delhi and FIR no. 342 dated 18^th October 2012 was registered. The complainant also lodged a complaint with Commissioner of Police as well as DCP, North East, but all in vain. It was the further case of the complainant that due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the cheques in question were misused and tampered and the accused succeeded in enchashing a sum of ₹4,80,000/- in his favour.

4. The complaint was contested by all the opposite parties by filing the written statement, wherein the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint by submitting that the complainant did not disclose in his complaint as to whether he signed blank cheque or the cheque was in the name of payee’s account and also failed to disclose the amount in words and figures before giving the cheque to the person. The opposite parties also sought some information from the complainant, but complainant did not respond to the same. There was no entry in the cheque which showed that the cheque was tempered/defaced/de-filled. The complainant himself had failed to take reasonable care, due diligence and handed over the cheque negligently to a stranger for which opposite parties cannot be held liable. The opposite parties prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. Both parties filed their respective evidence before the District Forum

6. After hearing arguments from counsel for the parties, the Ld. District Forum passed the following order:

7. Perusal of the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts on various issues such as (i) whether the blank or filled cheque was issued-to the stranger by the complainant as alleged in the complaint. (ii) whether the cheque in question was tampered/defaced/de- filled by the official of the OP or some other person in connivance with the official of the OP. All the issues referred herein requires elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

8. It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination. The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system. It is only way a Judge can decide, whom to trust. An answer during the cross-examination may wreck one'case. The court duty is to get to the bottom of the matter. The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem. Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure