Computer-generated document has no evidentiary value

It is very common these days for companies to send unsigned letters, invoices, etc, claiming the document is 'computer generated' and, hence, does not require any signature. This is totally fallacious. Unlike electronically transmitted messages, which can be traced and established, other documents which are printed out cannot be proved unless they are signed. The consequences of relying on such an unsigned document would be disastrous in the event of a dispute, according to a recently ruling of the National Commission.

In 2008, Chet Ram Rotha of Shimla sent five consignments of apples to Mukhtar Aalam in Kolkata for sale on commission basis. Rotha claimed an amount of Rs 6,13,081 was due to him from the sale proceeds, after deducting expenses and commission, which was evident from the bills sent by Aalam. Since Aalam failed to pay this amount, Rotha filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service.

Aalam contested the complaint, saying he had paid an advance of Rs 2.5 lakh but had not received even a single box of apples. He questioned the maintainability of the complaint as the dispute involved questions.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Aalam to pay Rs 6,13,081 with interest at nine per cent a year, a compensation of Rs 25,000, and costs of Rs 5,000.

Aalam went in appeal to the Himachal Pradesh State Commission, which modified the order. Instead of the entire amount, the advance of Rs 2.5 lakh was deducted and Aalam was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs 3,63,081. Aggrieved, Aalam approached the National Commission.

Aalam's main argument was the bills purportedly sent by him were not genuine but fake, and there was no evidence to prove Rotha had supplied any apples. Aalam contended he could not be expected to pay for what he had not received.

The National Commission pointed out that in order to establish deficiency in service, it would be necessary to produce the goods receipts to show Rotha as the consigner had despatched goods from Shimla for delivery to Aalam as the consignee in Kolkata. However, the goods receipts produced neither showed Rotha as the consignor nor Aalam as the consignee, and the transport was from Delhi to Kolkata.

The Commission also observed that the bills, which were computer generated, were disputed by Aalam. Since the bills did not bear Aalam's signature, there was no evidence to establish the authenticity of the bills. While deciding on the complaint, the Commission relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kusum Kund Durga v/s Kalra Papers (P) Ltd, [2013 (1) AD (Delhi) 532], where a similar view had been taken.

Accordingly, by its judgment of March 31, 2015, delivered by K S Chaudhari, the National Commission held the goods receipts and bills were unreliable and did not inspire any confidence. It concluded that in the absence of documentary evidence, it could not be presumed the goods had been despatched by Rotha and received by Aalam. The Commission set aside the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission, and dismissed the complaint.

So, in order that documents have evidentiary value, they must be thoroughly scrutinised to see they are properly prepared and signed.

The writer is a consumer activist