O r d e r

1. This appeal has been filed by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Chandinawan, Kashichak, District- Nawada and 2 others who were opposite parties in Complaint case no. 30 of 2018 filed by sole respondent/complainant Diwakar Kumar before the District Consumer Forum, Nawada against the order dated 04.07.2022 by which the complaint was allowed and the appellants were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent for deficiency in service with 7% interest thereon since the date of filing of complaint, Rs. 15,000/- for physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation within a period of two months of the date of order failing which to pay the entire amount with 11% interest till date of payment.
2. The case of complainant is that he holds SB account no. 7840000100018742 in the aforesaid branch. On 01.03.2018 he deposited a form of RTGS filled and signed by him along with cheque no. 219483 of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the Bank signed by him for transferring the aforesaid amount to account no. 30576626529 having IFSC code SBIN 0002914 (the name of beneficiary and the name of his Bank and it’s branch have not been disclosed in the complaint petition). Photo copy of it is annexere to the complaint petition without any number mark. On 06.03.2018 he received a message from appellant no. 1 on his registered mobile no. 8809541002 that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been debited from his account. His grievance is that the aforesaid amount had not been transferred to the aforesaid beneficiary rather it had been transferred to some different person Amit Raj. Then he contacted appellant no. 1 and filed an application also in the bank on 09.03.2018 stating the aforesaid facts but he did not take any action in the matter. His further allegation is that the bank had fraudulently transferred his aforesaid money to some other person’s account in collusion with some brokers. So, on this ground he had asked for the reliefs which were granted by the District Forum and are mentioned in para no. 1 hereinbefore.
3. The appellants appeared before the District Forum and filed their written statement in which they have stated that the money was transferred to the correct beneficiary and in support of this contention they have filed the photo copy of RTGS form submitted by the respondent in the branch. It is in annexure-3 series of appellants. They have denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and have stated that they are baseless. On these grounds they have stated that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and his case is liable to be dismissed.
4. On perusing the above referred annexure filed by the appellants we are satisfied that the money was transferred by O.P. no. 1 according to the instructions given by the complainant in the RTGS form (annexure-3 series) submitted by the respondent in the bank along with the cheque. So, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of O.P. no. 1.
5. The complainant has also alleged that his signature on the RTGS form whose photo copy has been filed by the appellants in annexure 3 series is not his signature rather it is his forged signature manoverred by bank officials. The burden of proving this allegations lies on the complainant, but he has not discharged this burden of proof by comparison of that signature with his specimen signature in bank by some expert. Mere oral evidence of complainant given on affidavit is not sufficient and conclusive to prove this allegation. The District Forum has perhaps lost sight of this aspect of Evidence Act while accepting this allegation of the complainant. Moreover, this allegation itself takes away the jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum over the case because in such circumstance it is not a case of deficiency in service rather it becomes a case of cheating and forgery which is triable by a regular Criminal Court. Therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
6. So, for the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed on contest and the impugned order is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                                         (Gita Verma)

             Member                                                                                                                     Judicial Member

Md. Fariduzzama