21/10/2014 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1.    This appeal arises from the judgement by which the learned Lower Forum has directed the appellants (Bank for short) to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant along with saving bank interest as permissible, besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost, within the 45 days of the judgement.

2.    The complainant Bablu Sharma filed the complaint case in question for return of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by him with the Bank besides compensation etc.

3.    Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted as follows: The Bank could not be held liable on the basis of the entries in the Pass Book, as the Pass Book remaned with the complainant. The complainant could not prove the alleged deposits made by him. It is true that there was defalcation and bungling in the Bank by the bank staff but this was not done in all the accounts. A three member committee was constituted by the Bank. The Consumers were asked to lodge their claims before the committee. The committee rejected the complaint made by the complainant, as he could not prove the deposit of the amounts. In his evidence the complainant admitted that he handed over both the alleged amounts to Dharmendra Kr. Sharma a contingent assistant of Bank, without obtaining any receipt. He also admitted that Dharmendra Kr. Sharma was a resident of the village of the complainant. He lastly submitted that taking advantage of the defalcation and bungling in the Bank, the complainant has raised a false claim.

4.    On the other hand Mr. Birendra Burman learned counsel appearing for the complainant, supporting the judgment under appeal, submitted as follows: It is true that the Pass Book remains with the complainant but the entries made therein have never been disputed by the bank. It is also true that the complainant did not take receipts of deposit of money but the entries in the Pass Book clearly show that he deposited the amounts in question in the Bank. Even in the FIR lodged by the bank it was alleged that the then Branch Manager, Cashier and Contingent Assistant-Dharmendra Kr. Sharma in connivance with each other, committed defalcation and bungling with the amounts deposited by the consumers. The name of the complainant is also mentioned in the statement annexed with the FIR. The three member committee was of the bank officials and the rejection of the complainant’s claim by the committee will not adversely affect the case of the complainant. The Bank has not come with clean hands in as much as apparently the cash scroll of the Bank was tempered with and a cash deposit form was manufactured by the Bank to defeat the case of the complainant.

5.    According to the complainant he gave Rs. 50,000/- on 14.07.2008 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 29.07.2008 in cash to Dharmendra Kr. Sharma an employee of the bank for depositing in his account but he did not take receipts. According to the Bank, Dharmendra Kr. Sharma was only a contingent assistant in the Bank and if the complainant gave the said amounts to him without obtaining any receipt, the Bank is not responsible.

6.    It is true that the complainant did not obtain receipts of the deposits of the said amounts, but the entries made in his Pass Book with initials of the Bank Staff can not be disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- on a subsequent date i.e. on 19.08.2008 which finds credit in the pass book. The balance amount shown in the pass book on 19.08.2008 includes the said deposits shown on 14.07.2008 i.e. Rs. 50,000/- and on 29.07.2008 i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- in the pass book. It also appears that there is tempering in the cash scroll of the bank dated 29.07.2008. The amount deposited by the complainant has been shown as Rs. 50,000/- after tempering the figure 1,00,000/-. The complainant has denied his signature on the cash deposit form. The learned Lower Forum has inter alia held that the signature on the cash deposit form filed by the Branch Manager of the bank does not tally with the signature of the complainant available on record. It was further found that from the perusal of the original bank cash scroll dated 29.07.2008 produced by the Branch Manager of the Bank it was found that there was tempering in the amount deposited by complainant. It is not the case of the Bank that the Bank did not receive the said amounts at all. According to the Bank there is no entry of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- on 14.07.2008 in the ledger and there is entry of Rs. 50,000/- only in the ledger on 29.07.2008. Therefore the Bank partly accepts the deposit of the amounts said to have been handed over by the complainant to Dharmendra Kr. Sharma.

7.    After hearing the parties at length and considering the materials relied by them, we do not find any reason to interfere with judgement under appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

8.    The statutory amount deposited by the appellants i.e. Rs. 25,000/- be given to the complainant/respondent within four weeks. The appellants are directed to pay the balance amount to the complainant as per the judgment under appeal i.e. Rs.86,000/- within 60 days of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled to realize such amount though execution proceeding as observed by the learned Lower Forum. With these observations and directions this appeal stands dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                  Ranchi,

      Dated: 21.10.2014