STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MADHU SUDON KOIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner who submits before us that copy of the order dated 19.11.2007 has been filed alongwith affidavit on 16.3.2011. By order dated 13.8.2010, counsel for the petitioner was directed to file reply, if any, filed to the application at pages 42 and 43 of the record of this revision by the respondent/complainant and order, if any passed by the Consumer Forum. It was further directed that if the complainant did not file any reply or the District Forum did not pass any order on that application, a categorical affidavit on that aspect, be filed by the petitioner, before the next date of hearing in the Registry. The said order was required to be complied with before the next date i.e. to say 29.11.2010. However, the said order was not complied with and the matter was adjourned to 28.3.2011. On 28.3.2011, counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 13.8.2010 had in fact been complied with and affidavit was filed in the Registry according to the clerk, Mr. Kamal Kishore Choudhary and a receipt of filing of the affidavit in compliance with order dated 13.8.2010 shall be filed, within two days. No affidavit on this aspect has been filed nor any receipt of filing affidavit in the Registry ha.s been filed.. There is thus no compliance of order dated 13.8.2010, even though, the order passed by the District Forum in that behalf has been filed along with affidavit filed on 16.3.2011. Be that as it may, we have heard counsel for the petitioner on merits of the matter.

(2.) The revision is directed against concurrent findings of two fora below. The case of the respondent/complainant was that he had deposited a sum of Rs.70,000 with the petitioner Bank but only a sum of Rs.7,000 was reflected in his account. The petitioner Bank did not rectify the entry and asked the respondent/complainant to produce counterfoil. The complainant produced the counterfoil but retained the photocopy of the counterfoil. The case of the petitioner Bank is that they had lost the original copy of the deposit slip. The Xerox copy of the counterfoil which was produced by the complainant, was examined by the District Forum and it was noticed that the same was not very legible but apparently contained the impression of the rectangular seal used by the Bank in Ex. B., name and account Number of the complainant and figure of Rs. 70,000 both in figure and words was visible. It also contained the cashier's scroll as M033, wherein, Ex. B cashiers scroll noted as M028. The District Forum believed the version of the complainant and disbelieved the stand taken by the petitioner Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to cause entry of Rs. 70,000 as deposit in place of Rs. 7,000 as recorded in the account of the respondent/complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000 for harassment and cost of Rs.5,000. This order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission.

(3.) The State Commission examined the matter and took note of the fact that the Bank had lost the original copy of the deposit form and there was no authentic record in the Bank to corroborate with the photocopy of the counterfoil deposited by the complainant. The State Commission also found that the entry of Rs. 7,000 made in the ledger was done with ulterior motive by some employees of the Bank. It was further held that only proof in that matter could have been original deposit slip of the complainant, which was said to have been lost by the petitioner Bank.