Gopal Khode vs District Co-Operative Central Bank

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President- Petitioner who was Complainant before the District Forum has filed the present Revision Petition. 1. Petitioner was having a Saving Bank Account with the Respondent-Bank. According to him, he was having a credit balance of Rs. 9,000 in his Saving Bank Account and that on 12th August, 1996 he had deposited Rs. 9,000 in his Saving Bank Account. It is the allegation of the complainant that Respondent Bank instead of showing deposit of Rs. 9,000, showed withdrawal of Rs. 9,000. Thus, causing a loss of Rs. 18,000 to him. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,259 in his account along with interest and to pay compensation and costs.

DISTRICT Forum allowed, the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay the sum of Rs. 18,000 to the complainant along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 12.8.1996 till realization and Rs. 500 were awarded as costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission after taking into consideration original ledger account and the scroll register of the Bank evidencing the withdrawal of the sum of Rs. 9,000, held that the Petitioner had re-deposited the sum of Rs. 9,000 in order to take an FDR, after withdrawing the sum of Rs. 9,000 from his account. The State Commission allowed the Appeal and reversed the finding recorded by the District Forum that the signatures of the Petitioner on the withdrawal form did not appear to be that of the Petitioner. This finding has been recorded by the State Commission after comparing the signature of the Petitioner on the withdrawal form with the specimen signatures and other admitted signatures of the Petitioner. The relevant findings of the State Commission are as under: "The original withdrawal form together with his specimen signatures available with the bank were produced before the District Forum. The District Forum was of the opinion that the signatures on the withdrawal form did not appear of the respondent. We also had opportunity to compare the signatures on the withdrawal form with the specimen signatures and other admitted signatures of the respondent. We are unable to agree with the finding of the Forum below that the signatures on the withdrawal form appeared different from specimen and the other admitted signatures. At least such a comparison was not sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion as drawn by the Forum below. The appellant-bank has produced original ledger account and the scroll register of the bank evidencing the said withdrawal of Rs. 9,000 by the respondent. On the back of the withdrawal form itself it is clearly stated that the amount so withdrawn is re-deposited by the respondent towards the FDR. All these entries made by the bank in the regular course of business are presumed to be correct. The material placed before the Forum below was not sufficient to hold that the signatures on the withdrawal form were not of the respondent. It was open for the respondent to have approach the civil Court to establish that some forgery was committed by the officials of the appellant-bank. The documents as produced before the Forum below revealed that the said withdrawal was made by the respondent and his complaint before the Forum below therefore deserved dismissal".

STATE Commission after comparing the signature on the withdrawal form and specimen signatures, has come to the conclusion that the signatures on the withdrawal form were of Petitioner. Respondent had produced original ledger account and the scroll register maintained by the Bank which clearly show that the sum of Rs. 9,000 were re-deposited by the Petitioner towards FDR after withdrawing the sum of Rs. 9,000 lying in his Saving Bank Account. All these entries have been made by the Bank in the regular course of business are presumed to be record. There is nothing on the record to show that the signature on the withdrawal form were not of the Complainant. No handwriting expert has been produced.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner has not been able to advance any worthwhile argument to enable us to take a view other than the view taken by the State Commission. Otherwise also, the finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered in the exercise of our power in revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.