Central Bank Of India. vs IQBAL KHAN

MR . Justice Ashok Bhan, President -Central Bank of India -petitioner herein, which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -III, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short) passed in Appeal No. A -87 of 1997 on 3.9.2004 whereunder the State Commission allowed the Appeal of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the respondent in view of the alleged mental harassment and torture inflicted by the petitioner on the respondent.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Complainant -respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that he was maintaining a current account in the name of M/s. Mamta Fashion with the Madipur, New Delhi branch of the petitioner -Bank. It was alleged that on 19.7.1995, the respondent sent cheque No. 157512 in the sum of Rs. 30,000 for collection but the same was dishonoured on the ground that the signatures of the respondent on the cheque did not tally with his signatures on the specimen card maintained by the Bank. It was contended by the respondent that he offered to sign the cheque again but even then the cheque was not cleared by the petitioner. He was advised by the officials of the Bank to close his account. That by refusing to honour the cheque on the ground of difference of signatures on the cheque and the specimen signatures on the card and, thereafter, forcing the respondent to close his account in the Bank amounted to deficiency in service and, accordingly, prayed for a direction to the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the deficiency in service.

PETITIONER , after service, entered appearance and filed his Statement of Objections. It was submitted that the impugned cheque in the sum of Rs. 30,000 was dishonoured because the signatures borne thereon did not match with the signatures on the specimen signature card. It was pleaded that when the respondent was called upon to sign the cheque again, he lost his tamper and started using filthy and abusive language, particularly, with the concerned lady officer who was dealing with the current account. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by many customers of the petitioner including Chhatar Singh and Babar Khan. That the respondent was not inclined to concede to the request of the petitioner, accordingly, respondent was asked to close his account.

COMPLAINAN T in support of the allegation that the officials of the petitioner -Bank misbehaved with him did not produce any evidence. As against this, petitioner -Bank has filed Affidavits of Chhatar Singh and Babar Khan, who were present at the time of the incident.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and evidences filed before it, came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. For coming to this conclusion, the District Forum noticed the fact that respondent had failed to produce any evidence in support of the allegation made by him. The District Forum relied upon the testimony of the two witnesses, i.e., Chhatar Singh and Babar Khan, produced by the petitioner -Bank who had stated that the officials of the petitioner -Bank had not misbehaved with the respondent.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission without discussing the evidence of Chhatar Singh and Babar Khan, the two witnesses produced by the petitioner -Bank, allowed the complaint on the basis of the sole testimony of the complainant/respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony, harassment, torture and for forcing the respondent to close his account. The amount was to be paid within two weeks.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

THE complaint was filed with the allegation that the officials of the petitioner -Bank had misbehaved with the complainant. In support of the allegation made, respondent did not produce the evidence of any independent witness. As against this, the petitioner -Bank had produced the evidence of two other customers of the petitioner -Bank, viz., Chhatar Singh and Babar Khan, who were present at the time of the incident. Both of them have categorically stated that the bank officials did not misbehave with the respondent. English translation of the statement of Chhatar Singh filed by the petitioner -Bank reads as under: [Translation is taken from the Order of the District Forum] "I, Chhatar Singh hereby state that on 19.7.1995 I had gone to the Bank. A person named Sh. Iqbal Khan whom, he knows personally, had presented his cheque for encashment but the Bank did not pay for the same as his signatures were not correct. He had seen that Sh. Iqbal Khan started abusing the official of the Bank and given them threats. He tried to pacify Sh. Iqbal Khan. He (Iqbal Khan) submitted an application which was identified by him. The signatures did not tally and the Madam (bank official) asked Iqbal Khan to put his signatures again. Sh. Iqbal Khan started hurling abuses and threatened the Bank official. This occurrence had taken place in his presence."

TO the similar effect is the statement of Babar Khan. The statement of these two witnesses clearly shows that it is the respondent who misbehaved with the officials of the Bank and not vice -versa. In the face of the evidence of these two witnesses, the State Commission has erred in reversing the findings of the District Forum specially when the respondent had failed to produce any evidence to contradict the statement of these witnesses.

FOR the reasons stated above, we accept this Revision Petition; set aside the Order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum. Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. R.P. allowed.