Arvind Sahni Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6313 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6313 of 2000)
Petitioner: Arvind Sahni
Respondent: Punjab & Sind Bank
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6313 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6313 of 2000)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 18, 2000
Head Note:
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Relief – Amount withdrawn from bank on forged cheque – On complaint by account-holder, relief granted and money paid – National Commission, however, imposed condition of furnishing indemnity bond. Held that condition was not justified as there was no case of connivance of the customer with forgery. Appeal allowed.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The case of the appellant was that somebody had wrongly with-drawn a sum of Rs. 34,000/- from his account with the respondent-bank. Complaint was filed and then an application was filed by the appellant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh. The State Forum came to the conclusion that as a result of the forgery, a cheque had been encashed. The cheque, for Rs. 30,000/- did not bear the signatures of the appellant and decree for Rs. 34,000/- was passed. The same was challenged and by the impugned order the National Commission has affirmed that it was not in dispute that the signatures on the cheque was not that of the appellant. The amount involved has already been paid to the appellant. The National Commission, however, directed the appellant to furnish indemnity bond.
3. It is this part of the order which is challenged by the ap-pellant. It is found that when admittedly the cheque was not signed by the appellant and the amount involved has been already reimbursed, the National Commission erred in requiring the fur-nishing of an indemnity bond especially when it does not appear to be a categorical case of the respondent that there was any sort of connivance between the appellant and the forgery. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside that part of the order of the National Commission which had required the appellant to furnish the indemnity bond.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The case of the appellant was that somebody had wrongly with-drawn a sum of Rs. 34,000/- from his account with the respondent-bank. Complaint was filed and then an application was filed by the appellant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh. The State Forum came to the conclusion that as a result of the forgery, a cheque had been encashed. The cheque, for Rs. 30,000/- did not bear the signatures of the appellant and decree for Rs. 34,000/- was passed. The same was challenged and by the impugned order the National Commission has affirmed that it was not in dispute that the signatures on the cheque was not that of the appellant. The amount involved has already been paid to the appellant. The National Commission, however, directed the appellant to furnish indemnity bond.
3. It is this part of the order which is challenged by the ap-pellant. It is found that when admittedly the cheque was not signed by the appellant and the amount involved has been already reimbursed, the National Commission erred in requiring the fur-nishing of an indemnity bond especially when it does not appear to be a categorical case of the respondent that there was any sort of connivance between the appellant and the forgery. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside that part of the order of the National Commission which had required the appellant to furnish the indemnity bond.
