SARASWATI CO Vs. DEAN LESLIE ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 4.4.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State dismissing appeal against the order dated 15.9.2005 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to credit the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 in S.B. Account No. 12036 and pay interest on that amount @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 22.1.2004 till the date of crediting of said amount and also pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation to the respondent.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Respondent/complainant was having S.B. Account No. 12036 in the petitioner/opposite party-Bank. Respondent alleged that on 21.1.2004, amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was debited in that S.B. Account by the Bank without his consent or authorization. On inquiry from the Bank, it was learnt that the amount was debited for remitting to the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai. Penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the respondent by the Directorate of Enforcement was to be paid by him of his own. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. Grounds of contest raised in written version need not be referred here for deciding the present revision.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar for the petitioner is that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was remitted to the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai by debiting the S.B. Account of the respondent on oral instructions of the respondent and though this plea had been taken in written version but was not considered by either of the two Fora below. Further, the District Forum has not held the petitioner Bank deficient in service and in absence of finding to that effect, the orders under challenge could not have been validly passed against the Bank. Copy of the written version filed by the petitioner is at pages 83 to 86 while that of the affidavit of Tyshete Mahadeo Anant, Chief Manager of the Bank filed by way of evidence is at pages 87 to 90. Copy of the complaint filed by the respondent is at pages 23 to 25 and that of the respondent's affidavit filed by way of evidence is at pages 50 to 56. Bare perusal of the written version and the affidavit of Chief Manager would show that the name of the Bank Officer whom instruction was orally given by the respondent to remit the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 to the Directorate of Enforcement together with the date have not been disclosed therein. In the complaint as also in affidavit the respondent has denied of having consented or authorised the Bank to debit the said amount in S.B. Account. In absence of name of the officer of the Bank whom instruction was allegedly given orally and the date thereof, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the case of the respondent of having not given any instruction/authorization to debit his S.B. Account with amount of Rs. 2,50,000 and to remit that money to the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai. Chief Manager whose affidavit was filed was not the officer whom alleged instruction was given orally.