Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Sections 2(1)(g). 13(4) & (5) and 22.

National Commission's judgment-Review of On grounds of forgery and fraud by complainant Commission ignored question of forgery/fraud and dismissed review petition-Held: Commission bound to decide question of forgery/fraud by recording evidence It had inherent power to recall its judgment iflit was obtained by forgery/fraud-Fraud amounted to abuse of process of Commission-Evidence of parties already on record and vital facts either stood admitted or proved Hence, Supreme Court in appeal could itself decide that question-Complainant committed forgery and practised fraud on the Commission Therefore, Commission erred in dismissing review petition.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 114 and 151.

Inherent power of Court Nature and exercise of Decree obtained by practising fraud on Court Review petition alleging fraud dismissed without deciding question of fraud-Held: Court bound to decide question of fraud by recording evidence and in appropriate cases it could recall its decree.

Penal Code, 1960: Sections 463, 464, 465, 470 and 471.

Forgery/fraud-Fraud an essential ingredient of forgery.

Words and Phrases: "Forgery" and Fraud-Meaning of In the context of Sections 463 and 464 of Penal Code, 1860.

The respondent entered into a contract for supply of gonds to a buyer in France. In due course, the goods were shipped. The respondent drew two Bills of Exchange and forwarded the same to the Buyer through the appellant-Bank. In the covering letter accompanying the Bills of Exchange the respondent merely directed the appellant to present the documents to the buyer through French Bank. In the covering letter no instruction was given for securing co-acceptance of the Bills of Exchange by the French Bank. The documents were sent by the appellant to the French Bank but the same were returned unpaid. The respondent forwarded a fresh set of Bills of Exchange for being sent to the French Bank. The Bills of Exchange, on their face, specifically provided for acceptance by the buyer and co-acceptance by the French Bank. The Banks were governed by the Uniform Rules for collection made by the International Chamber of Commerce. Subsequently the Buyer went under liquidation, the French Bank intimated that payment could not be made and the liquidator asked the respondent to file its claim for payment to the Buyer. Thereupon, the respondent filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming the value of the goods supplied to the Buyer in France from the appellant on ground of negligence which amounted to deficiency in service. The respondent's claim was based upon a second letter said to have been issued by it directing the appellant to obtain co-acceptance of the French Bank. The Commission allowed the claim and directed appellant to make the payments. The appellant filed a review petition before the Commission alleging that the respondent played fraud inasmuch as the second letter was never issued to the appellant and was forged by the respondent to obtain a decree in its favour. The Commission dismissed the review petition ignoring the question of forgery.