SUBHASH CHAND Vs. GURGAON GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission') in appeal No. 949 of 2007, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction. The appeal before 'the State Commission was filed by the opposite party Bank against the order of the District Forum, Rewari passed in complaint No. 77 of 2006 whereby directing the Bank to reverse the debit entry in the account of the complainant. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions-There is 8 days delay in filing the revision petition, which is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

(2.) The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised was in regard to a sum of Rs. 15,850 which the complainant stated to have deposited with the respondent Bank on 7.6.2004 and which was though duly credited in his account No. 5079 but later on the Bank had reversed the said entry on the premise that the entry was erroneously made in the account of the complainant. In fact on 7.6.2004 the amount was deposited by one Bhateri which was meant to be credited in her account No. 5039. Accordingly, the entry in the account of the complainant was reversed and amount debited. District Forum on a consideration of the evidence and material, allowed the complaint and held the Bank deficient in service and directed the Bank to reverse the debit entry in the account of the complainant. The State Commission has reversed the said finding and dismissed the complaint.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record in its correct perspective. He submits that the Bank failed to establish on record that the entry made in the account of the complainant on 7.6.2004 was done erroneously and, therefore, the entry could not have been reversed in the account of the complainant that too after a period of about two years. We have considered the submissions. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the District Forum was not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record because it failed to consider the intrinsic value of the documents, i.e., the cash scroll of 7.6.2004, and pay-in-slip produced on record which showed that the amount was in fact deposited on behalf of Bhateri and was meant to be credited in her account No. 5039 but due to error of certain official/officer, it was credited in the account of the complainant, i.e., Account No. 5079. The State Commission has gone into the question in detail and has observed as under;