PER JUSTICE R.K.BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Heard counsel for the petitioner who submits before us that copy of the order dated 19.11.2007 has been filed along with affidavit on 16.3.2011.  By order dated 13.8.2010, counsel for the petitioner was directed to file reply, if any, filed to the application at pages 42 and 43 of the record of this revision by the respondent/complainant and order, if any passed by the Consumer Forum.  It was further directed that if the complainant did not file any reply or the District Forum did not pass any order on that application, a categorical affidavit on that aspect, be filed by the petitioner, before the next date of hearing in the Registry.  The said order was required to be complied with before the next date i.e. to say 29.11.2010.  However, the said order was not complied with and the matter was adjourned to 28.3.2011.  On 28.3.2011, counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 13.8.2010 had in fact been complied with and affidavit was filed in the Registry according to the clerk, Mr. Kamal Kishore Choudhary and a receipt of filing of the affidavit in compliance with order dated 13.8.2010 shall be filed, within two days.  No affidavit on this aspect has been filed nor any receipt of filing affidavit in the Registry has been filed.  There is thus no compliance of order dated 13.8.2010, even though, the order passed by the District Forum in that behalf has been filed along with affidavit filed on 16.3.2011.  Be that as it may, we have heard counsel for the petitioner on merits of the matter.

          The revision is directed against concurrent findings of two fora below.  The case of the respondent/complainant was that he had deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the petitioner – Bank but only a sum of Rs.7000/- was reflected in his account.  The petitioner – Bank did not rectify the entry and asked the respondent/complainant to produce counterfoil.  The complainant produced the counterfoil but retained the photocopy of the counterfoil.  The case of the petitioner – Bank is that they had lost the original copy of the deposit slip.  The Xerox copy of the counterfoil which was produced by the complainant, was examined by the District Forum and it was noticed that the same was not very legible but apparently contained the impression of the rectangular seal used by the Bank in Ext.B., name and account Number of the complainant and figure of Rs.70,000/- both in figure and words was visible.  It also contained the cashier’s scroll as MO33, wherein, Ext.B cashiers scroll noted as MO28.  The District Forum believed the version of the complainant and dis-believed the stand taken by the petitioner – Bank.  Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to cause entry of Rs.70,000/- as deposit in place of Rs.7000/- as recorded in the account of the respondent/complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for harassment and cost of Rs.5000/-.  This order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission.

          The State Commission examined the matter and took note of the fact that the Bank had lost the original copy of the deposit form and there was no authentic record in the Bank to corroborate with the photocopy of the counterfoil deposited by the complainant.  The State Commission also found that the entry of Rs.7000/- made in the ledger was done with ulterior motive by some employees of the Bank.  It was further held that only proof in that matter could have been original deposit slip of the complainant, which was said to have been lost by the petitioner – Bank. 

In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.