State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission M/S Sant Ram Harbans Lal, vs Punjab National Bank, on 23 September, 2013 2nd Additional Bench STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 129 of 2010 Date of institution: 29.1.2010 Date of Decision : 23.9.2013 M/s Sant Ram Harbans Lal, Shop No. 116, New Grain Market, Muktsar through its Partner Harchand Kumar son of Harbans Lal, resident oa Desh Nagar, Galli No. 3, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. …..Appellant/Complainant Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. Punjab National Bank, Jalalabad West District Ferozepur through its Branch Manager. 3. Punjab National Bank, Main Branch Kacha Ferozepur Road, Muktsar through its Branch Manager. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of Harchand Kumar Ex. C-B, Partnership Deed Ex. C-1, Form ‘A’ Ex. C-2, Form ‘C’ Ex. C-3, photocopies of cheques Ex. C-4, specimen signatures of Harchand Kumar Ex. C-5, affidavit of Harchand Kumar Ex. C-6, FIR Ex. C-6/A, copies of ledger book (Rokera) Exs. C-7 to C-18, Profit and Loss A/c Ex. C-19, Balance sheet Ex. C-20, transaction sheet of cheque book Ex. C-21, statement of Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert Ex. C-A and Report Ex. CW-1/1 with Ex. CW-1/10 to Ex. CW- 1/12, Ex. C-22 FSL report, photocopies of cheque Ex. C-23 to Ex. C- 41, specimen signatures of Harchand Kumar Ex. C-43, 44 & 45. Partnership Deed Ex. C-46 to C-49, copies of bills Ex. C-50 & 51, statement Ex. C-52, specimen signatures and amount in words Ex. C-53 to 64, application dated 18.3.07 Ex. C-65. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence FSL report with photos dt. 15.9.09 Ex. R-1 to 17, affidavit of Ravi Bajaj of PNB, Jalalabad Ex. RW-2/A, affidavit of B.K. Maini Ex. RW-3/A, Account form and specimen signatures Ex. RW-2/B & C, RW-3/B, RW-4/B, 4/C, 4/D, 4/E, 5/B, affidavit of Kuldip Makkar of PNB, Hoshiarpur as Ex. RW- 4/A, affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Kundra Ex. RW-6/A, affidavit of Surjit Singh Ex. RW-7/A, affidavit of R.K. Mehra, Sr. Mngr, PNB, Muktsar Ex. RW-8/A, statement of A/c RW-8/B. 6. Learned District Forum also recorded the statement of Harchand Kumar s/o Harbans Lal, statement of Anil Kumar Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert, Fazilka, cross-examination of Dr. Seema Sharda, Assistant Director, FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh, statement of Dr. Parveen Kumar Janjua, Forensic Investigation Bureau, Dera Bassi, Distt. Mohali. As per the allegations of the complainant their cheque No. 031226 was stolen, its signatures were forged and it was presented before the Bank and payment was taken. To support his contention that the signatures on the cheque in question are not his signatures, he has examined CW-1 Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert, who in his report Ex. CW-1/1 has observed that signatures were Q-1 and Q-2 of disputed cheque revealed inconsistency in the writing characteristics coupled with line quality defects and after comparing the same with the standard signatures of Harchand Kumar S-1 to S-6 and RW-2/3, he has come to the opinion that the disputed signatures Q-1 and Q-2 are found to be different from the standard signatures S-1 to S-6 and RW-2/3; on the basis of finger movement, alignment, style of writing, line quality, pen pressure and shading, internal writing characteristics and as per that stated that the letter ‘h’, ‘a’, ‘r’, ‘c’, ‘h’, ‘a’, ‘n’, ‘d’, ‘k’, ‘u’, ‘m’, ‘a’, ‘r’ has been differently written in Q-1 and Q-2 as compared to be mark S-1 to S-6 and RW-2/3 and the difference is not merely on account of natural variations but on account of forgery of the signatures. In case we go through enlarged photographs of the signatures having record of Anil Kumar Gupta CW-1/11 and CW-1/12, there is a clear cut difference in writing ‘H’ in Q-1 than S-1 and S-3. Similarly, there is great difference in writing the word ”a’ in Q-1 then S-1 and S-3 because the mouth of the word ‘a’ in Q-1 is open as compared to S-1 and S-3. Similarly, in word ‘r’ there is a vovel in Q-1, which is missing in S-1 and S-3. Then there is apparent difference in writing vowel in ‘d’ in Q-1 as compared to S-1 and S-3. Further there is clear cut difference in writing word ‘K’ in Q-1 as compared to S-1 and S-3 so is in writing word ‘a’ & ‘r’ in Q-1 as compared to S-1 and S-2. Similar circumstances are appearing in case we examine Q-2 with S-4 and S-5 in chart CW-1/11, therefore, we are of the opinion that there is a apparent difference in the signatures on the disputed cheque as compared to the standard signatures of Harchand Kumar on the admitted documents, therefore, certainly, the signatures on the disputed cheque of Harchand Kumar are forged one. Therefore, keeping in view the latest judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the opinion that there is negligence on the part of the employees of the opposite parties as they did not take proper care while passing the cheque and did not properly compare the signatures of the complainant with his standard signature in the current account, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs. 21. No other point has been raised. 22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 28.12.2009 is set-aside. The appeal/complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. He is held entitled to recover Rs. 3 lacs from the opposite parties and litigation expenses of Rs. 15,000/-. The opposite parties/respondents are directed to make payment within a period of 30 days. 23. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 9.9.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. 24. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal.
