IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 18.12.2018 Date of hearing: 12.11.2025 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.526/2018 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 MRS. DAYA MALIK W/O MR. R.N. MALIK R/O 1118, DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR DELHI-110009 (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 18.12.2018 impugning order dated 25.08.2018 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. 310/2011.

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. 0267101016394 with the OP bank. On 21.08.2009, complainant visited the OP bank to receive her passbook from the OP and she was surprised to see that some unauthorized debits were made from his account through the following cheques :-

Date Cheque No. Amounts 1) 29.07.2009 00646195 Rs.45,000/- ii) 29.07.2009 00646196 Rs.29,000/- iii) 08.08.2009 00646197 Rs.35,000/- iv) 08.08.2009 00646198 Rs.30,000/- It is submitted that the complainant asked the OP regarding the misappropriation of above cheques. The complainant asked the OP to supply the photocopies of the above cheques and found that her signature on the said cheques were forged by someone in order to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- from her account. Complainant immediately sent written requests dated 24.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 to the OP to credit the amount of Rs.1,39,000/- in her 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 her to bear with them till something is heard from their higher authorities but nothing has been done by the OP till 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. Rs.1,39,000/- in the account of the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. August, 2009 and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- 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

25.08.2018, 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 Bank 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 four cheques in question are g