PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 3.6.2014 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 683 of  2013 -  The  Rajasthan  State  Co-operative  Bank  Ltd. through  Manager  VS. Kanhaiyalal Sharma, by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing the complaint was upheld.

          Brief facts of the case are that Complainant-Respondent deposited Demand Draft No. 336032 of Oriental Bank of Commerce for Rs. 5.00 lakhs and Demand Draft No. 030170 of Indian Bank Branch Kota for Rs. 5.00 lakhs in his Account No. 862  of the Opposite Party-Petitioner Bank on 5.7.2008 by delivering Demand Drafts to Smt. Suman Jain, Assistant  Manager.  On 22.7.2008, it was found that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was not credited in his bank A/c and on enquiry, the Opposite Party- Manager informed that payment of both the Demand Drafts has been made from Thar Gramin Bank, Jhotwara on 12.7.2008 in the name of one Kanhaiyalal and he has withdrawn the amount.  Complainant lodged FIR No. 169/08 against the Opposite Party on 26.7.2008 and legal notice was also issued for refund of money.  Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, the Complainant filed complaint before District Forum.  Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that aforesaid Demand Drafts were not deposited by the Complainant in Opposite Party No. 1- Bank for collection as the concerned Manager denied signatures on the Pay-in-slip by which the Demand Drafts alleged to have been deposited.  It was further submitted that Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar has recovered Rs. 5.54 lakhs from the accused persons and recovery proceedings was going on.  It was, further, submitted that Complainant’s drafts were deposited in Thar Gramin Bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed Opposite Party to pay Rs. 10.00 lakhs with 12% p.a. interest from 5.7.2008 and further ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as cost.  Appeal filed by the Opposite Party was dismissed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this Revision Petition has been filed.

          Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at admission stage and perused the record.

          Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint without any evidence of depositing drafts with the Petitioner-Bank and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal by non-speaking order, hence, Revision Petition be admitted.

          Perusal of record clearly reveals that the two Demand Drafts of Rs. 5.00 lakhs each were deposited by the Complainant in the branch of Opposite Party No. 1 and they were handed over to Smt. Suman Jain, Assistant Manager, which fact find corroboration from criminal revision petition filed by Smt. Suman Jain before the Session Judge, Jaipur.  In such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that Demand Drafts were not deposited by the Complainant with Opposite Party for collection.

          Perusal of impugned order reveals that it is a speaking order in which all the contentions have been dealt with by the State Commission and it cannot be said to be a non-speaking order.  Looking to the concurrent findings of Fora below, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

          Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.