APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  21^st  NOVEMBER  2016

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.04.2010, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 604/2008, Bank of Maharashtra vs. Smt. Shanta Vishnu Gudekar (deceased) through her legal heirs and Ors., vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 21.02.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane, in  Consumer Complaint No. 132/2007, partly allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Shanta Vishnu Gudekar stated in her consumer complaint before the District Forum that she had two Savings Bank accounts bearing no. 014059 and 700533 with the OP Bank.  It was alleged that the respondents no. 2 to 4/ OPs 2 to 4 had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,01,400/- from the Bank account no. 014059,  taking advantage of her old age and physical condition and making fake signatures.  They had also stolen the letter pad and stamp of the respondent no. 5, doctor and made bogus statements.  Her grandson Sunil Chavan had also withdrawn an amount of Rs. 41,000/- on various occasions from the second account no. 700533 by making false signatures.  The Bank had shown deficiency in service by permitting the said withdrawals without verifying her signatures.  It was the duty of the Bank to have verified the medical certificates submitted by the OPs.  It is also stated in the complaint that she filed complaint with the police against the respondents no. 2 to 4 where they admitted that they had withdrawn the amount by making false signatures of the complainant.  They also promised to return the said amount within three months, but the same was not returned.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking a total sum of Rs. 2,16,608/- from the OPs with 17% interest and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony etc.

3.      In their reply before the District Forum, the OP Bank stated that the complainant was attending the Bank alongwith her nearest relative/grandson and was tendered a withdrawal slip signed by her after necessary verification and interrogation.  The payments in question were made to the grandson of the complainant, Sunil Chavan as per her authorisation and certified and confirmed by the complainants physician and surgeon Dr. M. S. Thakkar.  All the payments were made on the strength of original documents in the normal routine course of Banking business after taking due precautions and care.  The Bank also stated that the complainant had lodged complaint with the local police against the OPs 2 to 4 regarding misappropriation of money and theft in her house.  The said accused had admitted their guilt on a stamp paper and undertook to return the amount within three months.  Under the circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank towards the complainant.  The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, partly allowed their claim vide their order dated 21.02.2008 and directed the OPs to return amount of Rs. 1,42,400/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest and a further compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP, Bank of Maharashtra filed appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 29.04.2010 and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.  It is against this order that the present Revision Petition has been made before this Commission.

4.      The main issue for consideration in the matter is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank in allowing withdrawal of money from time to time by the OPs/her near relatives.  In the complaint itself, it has been stated at one place that the OPs 2 to 4 had taken benefit of complainant’s age and physical condition and had withdrawn the money amounting to Rs. 1,01,400/- on various dates and for that purpose, they had stolen the letter pad and stamp of panel doctor of Labour Insurance Service Scheme and made bogus certificates.  It is also alleged that the respondent no. 4, Sunil Chavan had made withdrawals of Rs. 41,000/- after making false signatures of the complainant on various dates.  However, in the heading of the complaint, the respondent no. 4 has been stated to be Rupesh Duttatray Pawar and not Sunil Chavan.  At another place in the complaint, it has been mentioned that the complainant had no grandson with the name Sunil Chavan.  On the other hand, it is stated in the reply to the complaint by the Bank that payments were made to the said Sunil Chavan, stated to be her grandson on the basis of the withdrawal forms under her signatures and authorisation.  However, it is made out from the factual position on record that no evidence has come forward to prove, and no attempt has been made to indicate, whether the withdrawal slips received by the Bank were not signed by the complainant.  In the absence of such evidence, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank is not established.  It has also been stated in the complaint that she filed police complaint against the respondents no. 2 to 4, wherein the said respondents were called and they admitted that they had withdrawn money from the Bank and also agreed to return the said amount within three months.  It is clear from these facts that the matter is essentially between the complainant and the respondent no. 2 to 4, for which the complainant could seek remedy in accordance with law.  Since deficiency on the part of the Bank has nowhere been proved, the State Commission arrived at the right conclusion that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  It has also been observed by the State Commission that the complainant by her previous conduct, exhibited her faith in her grandson and made the Bank officials believe that he was acting on her behalf and under her authority.  The said grandson has not even been made a party in the complaint.

5.      Based on the discussion above, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error and the same is upheld.  This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.