JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The case of the complainant / petitioner is that he deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/- in his account with the respondent bank on 18.2.2014, for which a receipt was issued to him by the bank. The said amount however, was not found credited in his account. He therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The respondent bank did not enter appearance and did not file any reply before the concerned District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the bank to deposit an amount of Rs.49,000/- in the account of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to him, along with Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. 2. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 01.8.2017, the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission. 3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the case of the bank before the State Commission was that no notice having been received by it, it could not appear and file its reply before the District Forum. It was also stated on behalf of the bank that the receipt filed by the petitioner / complainant was not genuine and the amount in question was not deposited with the bank. 4. When this petition came up for hearing on 09.10.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner would have no objection to the matter being remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to prove the genuineness or otherwise of the seal appearing on the deposit slip filed by the petitioner. He also stated that the original deposit receipt had already been filed before the District Forum. Notice of the revision has been served upon the respondent but no-one is present for it. 5. Today, a new counsel namely Ms. Heena Khan, is present for the petitioner and states that the Statement dated 9.10.2018 was made by the counsel without instructions from the petitioner / complainant. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would only be appropriate to remit the matter back to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent bank to file its written version before the District Forum. The parties also need to be given an opportunity to prove the genuineness or otherwise of the deposit receipt, which the petitioner / complainant had filed before the District Forum. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh, after considering the written version of the respondent bank and giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the genuineness or otherwise of the deposit receipts which the petitioner / complainant had field before the District Forum. 6. The respondent bank shall be entitled to file its written version before the District Forum within thirty days from today, failing which it will have no opportunity for the purpose and the District Forum will be entitled to decide the complaint afresh, on the basis of the material placed by the complainant before the District Forum. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 28.02.2019. One copy of this order be sent to the respondent bank by registered post within one week from today. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
