- (1.) The appellant, who was maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the respondent-Bank filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service by the respondent, submitting that the Bank had wrongly debited an amount of Rs. 75,70,352/- in the account of the complainant by honouring such cheques as bore forged signatures of the complainant and in some of the cheques the figures had been altered. Photocopies of such cheques were filed with the complaint. As many as 72 cheques were issued on such dates when one of the two persons purportedly drawing the cheques was already dead. The other one denied his signatures and such disputed signatures did not at all tally with the standard specimen signatures. Suspicion was raised against an official of the respondent-Bank. The complaint was filed after serving notice on the respondent-Bank, which was not complied with.
(2.) The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter, NCDRC, for short), formed an opinion as under : ". . . . . . . . . .considering the allegations in the complaint and the time that will require to decide the matter, it cannot be perhaps possible for this Commission to take up this matter. Numerous documents would be required to be proved including about 150 cheques. Service of the experts will have to be requisitioned for proof of the signatures and the writings wherein the figures in cheques have been altered. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission is expected to decide the matter within a set frame of time. In Bharthi Knitting Co. v. DHL Worldwide (1996 (4) SCC 704) Supreme Court has said, "Each case depends upon its own facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily a Tribunal has to refer the parties to original civil suit established under CPC or appropriate State law to have the claims dealt with between the parties." Present is certainly a case involving an acute dispute. "We feel reluctant to require the complainant to knock the door of Civil Court but considering the constraint of time required to decide this matter, this Commission has its limitations. With these observations this complaint is returned."
(3.) The complainant has filed this appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, the Act for short).;