SUBHASH CHAND vs GURGAON GRAMIN BANK

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. 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.

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: "We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Mr. Pavan Malik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties, has vehemently argued that on 7.6.2004 the dealing official of the Bank,i.e., the cashier had entered the amount of Rs. 15,000 deposited by Bhateri in respect of her account No. 5039 in the register (G.G. 37) at page No. 267; signed the pay-in-slip and had given the same to the other officer of the Bank for making entry of the same in the ledger of the account holder. In support of his arguments Mr. Malik has referred to pay-in-slip Annexure A-l and Cash Scroll of the Bank dated 7.6.2004 as Annexure A-2. A close scrutiny of the Cash Scroll dated 7.6.2004 Annexure A-2 clearly established that there is an entry of Rs. 15,000 towards the account No. 5039 and there is no entry with respect of account No. 5079 of the complainant. In other words, the complainant had not deposited the alleged amount,i.e., Rs. 15,000 in his account. A man may tell lie but the documents do not. Annexure A-l Pay-in-Slip and Cash Scroll Annexure A-2 speaks volumes about the truth in the matter in supporting contention of the Bank. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the controversy involved in the case and as such the impugned order which is illegal on the face of record, cannot be allowed to sustain. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. "

IN our view, the finding and order of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Revision Petition dismissed in limine.