DIBAKAR MOHAPATRA Vs. DHANESWAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Parija, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.

(2.) The sole point for decision in this appeal is whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.6,000/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum as awarded by the District Forum. Facts are stated in detail in the judgment of the Forum below. On perusal of the impugned order and the materials on record, we find that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,000/- with the present appellant who was then the Secretary of the service Co-Operative Society, Endore at Bhagabatpur in the District of Kendrapara. This he deposited for investment in Indrabhanu scheme under which the amount was to be doubled within 63 months. Admittedly the complainant did not get any benefit from the scheme since it is his case that the present appellants though received the money and granted a receipt, did not deposit the same under the scheme. It is the case of the present appellant that in fact he did not grant any receipt in token of having received the amount of Rs.6,000/-. The receipt was a forged one and manufactured by the complainant in order to make out a false case against him.

(3.) The fact remains that the present appellant was working as the Secretary of the Society at the relevant time. Whether he has misappropriated the amount of Rs.6,000/- in not depositing the same in Indradhanu Scheme or not is not the matter for decision by this Forum. However, in order to find out deficiency in service by the Society as well as the Central Co-operative Bank, the District Forum has considered all the materials and has come to a finding that the possibility of the present appellant in his capacity as the Secretary of the Society, having granted the receipt could not be ruled out. In other words, the District Forum has given a finding that the receipt granted by the present appellant was genuine. Though Mr. Das has strenuously urged that he wants to call for certain materials to prove the innocence of the present appellant, we are of the view that when he challenged in the written version that the receipt was forged by the complainant or in other words his signature purported to have been given on the receipt was not his signature, onus lay on him to prove in the District Forum that the document was a forged one. This positive assertion of the present appellant that his signature was forged by the complainant has not been discharged by disproving the fact that the receipt was signed by him. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that in fact the present appellant has signed the receipt.