IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 2003   

Vijaya Bank ..    Appellant(s)

                    Versus

Gurnam Singh ..    Respondent(s)  

                                                      O R D E R

This appeal, by special leave is directed against  

order  dated  16th July,  2002,  passed  by  the  National  

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  New  Delhi  (for  

short, “the National Commission”) declining to entertain  

the appellant's revision petition under Section 21(b) of  

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”).   

The material facts, found by the forums below and  

relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows :

The  respondent.  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

complainant”) had a savings bank account with the appellant  

bank.   Somehow  he  lost  his  cheque  book  containing  one  

unused leaf and the requisition slip  required for issue of  

a  new  cheque  book.   On  24th September,  1999,  when  the  

complainant  visited  the  bank  to  draw  money,  he  was  

surprised  to  find  that  there  was  only  a  balance  of  

Rs.1682.93  in  his  account.  On  enquiries  being  made,  it  

transpired that the requisition slip had been used to get a

new cheque book issued from the bank and  the left over   

..2/-

: 2 :

cheque in the lost cheque book had  been misused to draw an  

amount of Rs.2,500/- from  complainant's account.  It was  

also discovered  that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- had been  

withdrawn from the account by using a cheque leaf  of the  

newly issued cheque book.  

Having failed to get the amount so withdrawn from  

his account reimbursed by the bank, the complainant filed a  

complaint  with  the  District  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  

Forum, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short, “the District Forum”)  

alleging  deficiency  in  service  by  the  Bank.   Upon  

consideration of the material before it, which included  

examination  of  complainant's  account  opening  form;  the  

requisition slip; and the cheque in question, vide  order  

dated 4th December, 2001, the District Forum came to the  

conclusion that  there was gross deficiency in the service  

by the bank which resulted in loss to the complainant.  

The District Forum found that specimen signatures on the  

account opening form and the cheque used for withdrawal of  

money were different and more significantly when cheque in  

the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was presented, balance in the  

account of the complainant was only 3,46,682.93/- and yet  

it  was  honoured  by  recording  a  debit  entry  of  Rs.  

3,317.07/-  as  recoverable  from  the  complainant.

Consequently, the District Forum  accepted the complaint  

and directed the bank to credit the amounts of Rs.2,500/-  

and Rs. 3,50,000/- less Rs. 5,000/- in the account of the  

..3/-

: 3 :

complainant along with  interest @ 10 per cent per annum  

w.e.f. 17th August, 1999 till the date of  the correct  

entry.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal to  

the  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  U.T.,  

Chandigarh (for short, “ the State Commission”) but without  

any success.  The State Commission affirmed the findings  

recorded by the District Forum.

Not  being  satisfied,  the  appellant  preferred  

revision  petition  before  the  National  Commission.   As  

afore-stated,  the  National  Commission  has  dismissed  the  

revision petition on the ground that both the forums below  

have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there is  

negligence  on  the  part  of  the  bank  in  rendering  the  

services.  Hence, the present appeal.

We have heard Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, learned counsel  

appearing on behalf of  the appellant.  It is strenuously  

urged by the learned counsel that all the forums below have  

erred in ignoring the  expert's opinion adduced in evidence  

by the bank in support of its stand  that there was no  

forgery in the signatures on the cheques in question.  We

do not find any substance in the submission for the simple  

reason that the said report was no evidence in the eye of  

law.  Admittedly, the report was not proved by summoning  

the expert.  The Manager who had merely annexed the report  

with his affidavit could not prove the same and, therefore,  

..4/-

: 4 :

the forums below were justified in ignoring the report.  On  

a query by the Court as to how in the absence of any  

overdraft  facility  being  enjoyed  by  the  complainant,  a  

cheque for the amount which was in excess of the balance  

amount in the account of the complainant could be honoured,  

learned  counsel  is  unable  to  furnish  any  satisfactory  

explanation.  In our opinion, this fact, highlighted by the  

State  Commission,  by  itself  is  a  glaring  example  of  

negligence/deficiency in the service of the bank.

In the light of of the factual scenario as emanating  

from the orders of the District forum as also the State  

Commission  and  bearing  in  mind  the  limited  scope  of  

revisionary jurisdiction of the National Commission, we are  

of the opinion that the National Commission was justified  

in declining to entertain the revision petition against the  

said orders. The appeal, being bereft of any merit, is  

dismissed  accordingly  with  costs  quantified  at  

Rs. 10,000/-.         

                                    ....................J.

           [ D.K. JAIN ]                                 

                                          ....................J.             [ T.S. THAKUR ]

                  NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 02, 2009.