MOHAMMED SALIM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 18th July, 2001 in Complaint No. 324/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the Distt. Forum for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainants/appellants.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in the complaint, the complainants had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - with the respondent/Bank on 18.9.1998 for a period of 75 months. A fixed deposit receipt bearing No. SD/A/35185364 was given to them. It was further averred that the maturity date of the said fixed deposit was 18.12.2004. It was further averred that since the complainants were in need of money, they approached the respondent/Bank for grant of loan on the basis of the said fixed deposit receipt. The complainants were then informed by the officials of the respondent/Bank that the said fixed deposit receipt was a forged one and that it was not authoritatively issued by the respondent/Bank. The original receipt was retained by the respondent/Bank after giving an acknowledgement to the complainants. The prayer of the complainants was that the respondent/Bank be directed to pay the amount on the said FDR with interest thereon.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the respondent/Bank. In its written version respondent/Bank averred that no amount was deposited by the complainants in the Bank in respect of the said FDR and that it was not issued by the respondent/Bank. It was further averred that an employee of the respondent/Bank namely Shamshul Haq had stolen some of the blank FDRs and committed forgery by issuing the same to various persons after receiving the amount from them personally. It was alleged that the receipt produced by the complainants also appears to have been issued by the said Shamshul Haq who was personally acquainted with the respondent/Bank without the complainants depositing the amount thereof with the respondent/Bank in the regular course of business. It was further averred that the respondent/Bank was not liable to pay any amount towards the said receipt.