IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 10.10.2018 Date of hearing: 12.11.2025 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.438/2018 IN THE MATTER OF CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS THE SENIOR MANAGER CANARA BANK, SOUTH EXTENSION-I NEW DELHI-110049 (Through Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Advocate Email: advgkumar@gmail.com Mob.9313350568)

…APPELLANT VERSUS MR. RAKESH KUMAR S/O MR. BHOPAL SINGH R/O A-8/82, SECTOR-16 ROHINI, DELHI (Through Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate Email: advocatekksingh@gmail.com Mob.9910808470)

…RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Nishant Kumar, counsel for the appellant (Email:

associate@cgk.legal).

Respondent in person (Mob.9910740735).

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, PRESIDING MEMBER

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 10.10.2018 impugning order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South District), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area, Behind Qutub Hotel Mehrauli, New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter called the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint bearing no. 309/2011.

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

“Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was having account No. 026711010512036 with the OP bank. On 21.08.2009, complainant visited the OP bank to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- and on inquiry of his balance, he was surprised to see that some unauthorized debits were made from his account through the following cheques :- Date Cheque No. Amounts 1) 18.08.2009 021466 Rs.38,000/- ii)19.08.2009 021469 Rs.9,000/-

It is submitted that the complainant asked the OP regarding the misappropriation of above cheques and found that his signature on the said cheques were forged by someone in order to withdraw an amount of Rs.47,000/- from his account. The complainant immediately sent written requests dated 24.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 to the OP to credit the amount of Rs.47,000/- in his account. The OP replied vide letter dated 05.09.2009 and 21.11.2009 but till date nothing has happened and the complainant is still living on the false assurance of the OP. It is submitted that perusal of the cheques in question clearly shows that someone had forged the signature of the complainant on the said cheques and as such the OP is liable to pay the amount Complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.07.2011 to the OP. OP replied the same vide letter dated 18.07.2011 wherein once again the OP advised him to bear with them till something is heard from their higher authorities but nothing has been done by the OP ill date Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to credit the amount of Rs. 47,000/ in the account of the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. August 2009 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for causing undue mental harassment and agony and also cost of litigation to the complainant.”

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

24.04.2018, whereby it held as under:

“We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully and also the following two judgments relied on behalf of the OP:-

i. United Commercial Fank Vs. Mahendra Popatlal Vora

1(1995) CPJ 83 (NC).

ii. Bank of Maharashtra Vs. M/s Automotive Engineering Co (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 97.

The complainant has filed the copy of letter dated 24.08.2009 regarding unauthorized debits from his account. We mark it as Mark-C for the purposes of identification The only question to be decided in the present complaint is whether the signatures of the complainant on the two cheques in question are genuine or appeared to be genuine so as to give occasion to the official of the OP bank to make the payment in good faith in accordance with apparent tenur