Complainant is in revision before us.

          Petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the allegation that it had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- by cheque and Rs.13,000/- by cash in the respondent’s bank.  The petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.20,000/- to a third party but it was dishonored by the respondent bank due to ‘Insufficient Funds’  in the account of the petitioner.  When the complainant contacted the

-2-

respondent bank, it came to know that the respondent did not credit the said amount of Rs.63,000/- in its account.   It made a request for crediting the same in its account but in vain.  Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to credit the said amount of Rs.63,000/- in favour of the petitioner.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission with the allegation that the sum of Rs.60,000/- had been wrongly credited in the petitioner’s account which was later on debited from its account.  It was stated that this was due to a mistake.  The State Commission allowed the appeal; reversed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  In para 9 of its order, the State Commission has recorded the following finding to come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on part of the respondent:

       “9.     it is not disputed by the complainant that rupees 20,000/- vide aforesaid cheque dated 30.9.2000 and rupees 40,000/- vide aforesaid cheque dated

-3-

03.10.2000 after clearance has been credited to his S.B. Account on 03.10.2000.  He has not produced either the pay-in-slip or any other proof to establish that rupees 60,000/- in cash has also been deposited on the same day i.e. on 03.10.2000 as against said account.  He also does not challenge the genuineness of the aforesaid cash scroll (Annexure-VII) and transfer scroll (Annexure-VI).  But cash scroll is silent about cash deposit of rupees 60,000/- whereas transfer scroll discloses about credit of rupees 60,000/- deposited through cheques to the said account on 03.10.2000.  Therefore, the necessary conclusion would be that as no cash deposit by complainant had been made on 03.10.2000, the cash scroll is silent in that respect.  Admittedly, rupees 60,000/- through two cheques has been credited on transfer basis which has been reflected in the transfer scroll and in the ledger account (Annexure-IX) and in the pass book.  Therefore, even though the Bank ledger (Annexure-IX) speaks about credit of rupees 60,000/- to the said account being deposited by cash and, accordingly, has been mentioned in the pass book, that is a bonafide mistake of the banker.  Had a cash of rupees 60,000/- been

-4-

deposited in the said account on 03.10.2000, it would have been reflected in the cash scroll.  Opposite party No.1 Bank pleads that soon after said wrong entry was disclosed, complainant was appraised about the same and advice Annexure-VIII (Xerox copy) has been served upon him.  The complainant also deposited through cheque dated 15.1.2001 rupees 50,000/- and by cash rupees 13,000/- which was credited to his account when rupees 63,077/- was due against complainant and on the very same day, said amount of rupees 63,000/- has been debited.  This has been reflected in Annexure-IX maintained on 15.01.2001.  After 15.1.2001, there is no transaction in the said account where the balance amount is rupees 873/-.  Complainant not only is silent in respect to Annexure-VIII but also in respect to debit of rupees 63,077/- after aforesaid amount of rupees 63,000/- was deposited by him on 15.1.2001.  Therefore, conclusion can be drawn safely that knowing fully well about the balance amount in his said account, complainant had issued a cheque dated 17.01.2001 for rupees 43,000/- in favour of opposite party No.1 Bank.  But, opposite party No.1 Bank has rightly refused to honour the cheque due to

-5-

insufficient fund.  In these end of the view, the opposite party No.1 Bank – the appellant has caused no deficiency in service to the complainant and question of damage to the image of organization for which District Forum has awarded compensation does not arise.”

It is evident from reading this paragraph that the sum of Rs.60,000/- was wrongly credited to the account of the petitioner and on detection of the mistake a reverse entry was made in its account. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Revision petition is dismissed.