Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/128/2018

Jaspreet Singh Bedi s/o Jagdish Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gopal Shastri

26 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

FIRST APPEAL NO: 128 /2018

 

Jaspreet Singh Bedi s/o Jagdish Singh r/o Plot No. 4/69 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Axis Bank Ltd. Br.Tilak Nagar, Jaipur through Manager

 

Date of Order 26.11.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Gopal Shastri counsel for the appellant

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 23.1.2018 whereby the complaint is dismissed.

2

 

The contention of the appellant is that original FDR is still in his possession and his signatures has been forged on the application hence, respondents are deficient.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondents is that they are not deficient. On the application of the complainant and co-depositor Surjeet Kaur, the money was debited in the account of Surjeet Kaur as she was the first holder.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

Ex. R 2 submitted by the respondents clearly shows that on the instructions of Surjeet and the present appellant the money was remitted in the account. The contention of the appellant is that his signatures on the application are forged one and to support this contention a report of private examiner Dinesh Sethi has been submitted. It is not in dispute that Mr.Sethi has not examined the original document and only on photo copy the report has been prepared that too in favour of the complainant and when a private examiner has given

 

3

 

 

opinion in favour of the complainant without even seeing the original document, the opinion of the private examiner could not be relied upon.

 

This is not the case of the complainant that signatures of Surjeet are also been forged . Hence, when the first holder has submitted the application to the bank alongwith signatures of the present appellant and the bank has acted on the instructions of the depositor, they cannot be said to be deficient and the Forum below has rightly dismissed the claim.

 

The counsel for the respondent has submitted that to credit the amount in the account of holder original receipt was not needed as FDR was entered in the bank record and only receipt was issued to the customer.

 

The appellant has submitted III (2016) CPJ 615 (NC) Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Dena Bank where on the facts of the case the matter was

 

 

4

 

considered.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm