Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/09/2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint No.7/2001.
2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under :-
The complainant had filed consumer complaint praying direction against the opponent to pay an amount of `50,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 15/12/1997 with costs. The complainant was having a saving bank account No.19886 in opponent/Bank. It is the allegation of the complainant that an amount of `50,000/- was drawn from his account without his knowledge and consent. The complainant therefore, contended that he had requested opponent/Bank vide letter dated 15/12/1997, 13/01/1998 and 09/02/1998 to look into the matter and to pay the amount along with interest. It is further contended that opponent/Bank undertook investigation and in the investigation, it is transpired that amount was withdrawn by forging his signature on the cheque and on other documents. The complainant had also filed F.I.R. in the Mahim Police Station. The opponent/Bank informed the complainant that request of the complainant is depending upon outcome of the police investigation. The Police investigated into the F.I.R. and one Mr.Nagraj, who was resident of Rantwala, Tal. Madhugiri, Dist. Tumkar, State of Karnataka was arrested. The opponent/Bank informed to the complainant that there was no mistake on the part of opponent/Bank and the Bank acted in good faith and moneys were paid after verifying signature. According to the complainant, this is a deficiency on the part of opponent/Bank.
3. Opponent/Bank contested the complaint by filing written version. The opponent/Bank admitted the Bank account of the complainant and withdrawal of sum of `50,000/- from his account. The opponent/Bank contended that the amount was paid on the basis of letter of the complainant himself. It is further contended that the opponent/Bank after verifying the signature allowed the withdrawal of the amount. It is further contended that during the relevant period, the complainant has updated his passbook four times. However, he did not point out any grievance against the alleged withdrawal. It is further case of the opponent/Bank that the complainant in collusion with his brother-in-law Shri G. Nagaraj is trying to gain wrongfully by pressurising opponent/Bank. Therefore, opponent/Bank denied any liability on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after going through the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavit, F.I.R. filed with Police and the close relationship between complainant and the person who has withdrawn the amount, came to the conclusion that the opponent/Bank is not deficient in service and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order that org. complainant has filed this appeal.
5. The matter was lying unattended in this Commission. It was placed before us on 22/09/2011. We directed office to issue intimation to both the parties. Accordingly, intimations were issued informing the today’s date of hearing. Today, both the parties remained absent. This being an old matter, we decided to proceed with the appeal on merits.
6. Admittedly, the complainant is having saving bank account bearing No.19886 in the opponent/Bank. It is the allegation of the complainant that an amount of `50,000/- has been withdrawn from his account without his knowledge and consent. As against this, it is the contention of the opponent/Bank that the amount was allowed to be withdrawn on the basis of letter from the complainant himself. In the instant case, the complainant himself has filed a F.I.R. in the Mahim Police Station and the Mahim Police Station had conducted the investigation into the F.I.R. and arrested one Mr.G. Nagaraj, who is brother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant himself confessed this fact. Similarly, during the relevant period, the complainant had updated his passbook for four times. However, he has not made any grievance about the withdrawal of the amount without his knowledge and consent. On the face of record, we do not find any deficiency on the part of opponent/Bank. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after considering the evidence filed by both the parties had arrived to the conclusion that there is no deficiency on the part of opponent/Bank and hence, dismissed the complaint. We find the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. The order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to both the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 8th December 2011.
