Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.35,000/- with interest and damages of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that; he is a account holder in Opposite party Bank having account no.1897 and whenever the transaction taken place, the bank officials used to enter the transaction in the pass book. The complainant has deposited Rs.35,000/- on 24.05.2007 and the officials of the Opposite party Bank have entered the said deposited amount in the pass book. The complainant had issued a cheque to one K.r.Narasimha Murthy for Rs.40,000/- on 23.04.2008. The said cheque was dishonored by the Opposite party stating insufficient funds. Though sufficient amount available in the account of the complainant, the Opposite party dishonored the cheque without verifying the balance and this act of the Opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. The dishonor of the cheque also affects the reputation of the complainant. Then the complainant approached the Opposite party and showing the pass book entry, requested to verify the same in the ledger and the officials of the Opposite party told that it was not at all entered in the ledger and it was assured that necessary entry will be made in the ledger, but the Opposite party did not enter. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed breach of trust and caused loss to the complainant and is liable to repay Rs.35,000/- along with interest. In spite of legal notice dated 16.05.2008, the Opposite party did not respond. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. After service of the notice, the Opposite party has filed version. Admitting that the complainant is a account holder in the Opposite party Bank and making transaction, but denied that on 24.05.2007 Rs.35,000/- was deposited by the complainant to his account and entry was made in the pass book. Admitting the dishonor of the cheque issued by the complainant, it is denied that there was sufficient fund in the account of the complainant and the cheque was dishonored without any reason. The other allegations in the complaint are also denied. The legal notice was properly replied, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service and not liable to pay any amount. The pass book produced by the complainant is not issued by the Opposite party Bank and there is no signature of the officials of that Bank for the transaction entered in the said pass book and the said pass book is created to get monetory gain with false allegations. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trail, the Complainant is examined as CW.1 and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.7. The Opposite party is examined as RW.1 and Ex.R.1 to R.4 are marked. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant proves that he has deposited Rs.35,000/- on 24.05.2007 to the Opposite party Bank to his account? 2) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in dishonoring the cheque issued by the complainant and not making entry of deposit of Rs.35,000/-? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS No.1 to 3:- The undisputed facts are that the complainant is a customer of the Opposite party Bank and having S.B. Account No.1897 and was making transaction. According to the complainant, on 24.05.2007 he deposited of Rs.35,000/- and bank officials made entry of the said deposit in his pass book Ex.C.1 and after depositing the said amount he issued the cheque for Rs.40,000/- on 23.04.2008 as per Ex.C.2 in favour of K.R.Narasimha Murthy and the cheque was bounced stating insufficient funds as per Ex.C.3. According to the complainant, later he enquired the Opposite party Bank and came to know that his deposit is not made in the ledger of the Bank and even the Opposite party refused to correct the same in the ledger and make the payment. The complainant has produced Ex.C.1 the pass book, but Opposite party has disputed that this pass book was issued by the Opposite party Bank and further disputed that the entries found in Ex.C.1 are made by the Officials of the Opposite party Bank. The Opposite party has relied upon the transaction sheet dated 24.05.2008 marked as Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.2 the ledger copy of the complainant account. 9. The primary burden is on the complainant to prove that he deposited Rs.35,000/- to the Opposite party Bank to his account on 24.05.2007. The complainant has not produced the challen for having deposited Rs.35,000/- on that day. But has relied upon the entry made in the pass book Ex.C.1 on 24.05.2007, but in the transaction sheet Ex.R.4 dated 24.05.2007, there is no cash receipt of Rs.35,000/- at all. As per entry in the pass book Ex.C.1, Rs.35,000/- said to have been deposited under challen number B-(9). The transaction on 24.05.2007 in the Opposite party bank is entered in 4 pages, but we do not find the entry in item No.9 of the sheets at all. On the other hand, the Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 challen no.9/1 wherein only Rs.10/- is deposited by one K.Devalingegowda and it finds a place in item no.9 of first sheet of Ex.R.4. When the Opposite party has disputed entries made in Ex.C.1 the pass book and when complainant has not produced the challen and when the transaction sheet dated 24.05.2007 does not show the deposit of Rs.35,000/- under challen no.9, it requires complete detail investigation by a Civil Court. It has to be determined whether the pass book Ex.C.1 is a genuine one or not and whether the entries made in Ex.C.1 pass book are made by the staff of the Opposite party Bank. Available evidence discloses that the staff on rotation perform the duty of cashier, ledger clerk and there is a passing officer. The details of cashier, ledger clerk, passing officer on 24.05.2007 are to be ascertained and their writings have to be obtained and then they have to be examined by handwriting expert with the assistance of ledger entries, transaction sheet with that of entries made in Ex.C.1. 10. It is common that the cashier first receives the amount with challen and giving a challen number and making in the transaction sheet, issue the counter file to the customer if the account number is correct. Thereafter, it will be verified by the passing officer and then the entry will be made in the ledger based on the transaction sheet. According to the complainant, after depositing the amount on 24.05.2007 the officials of the bank entered the said deposited in the pass book, but immediate entry of the deposit in the pass book is not possible, because the ledger clerk has to wait till the transaction sheet with challen signed by the cashier and passing officer and the entry in the ledger should be verified by the Manager of the Bank or passing officer and thereafter only the ledger clerk has to make entry in the pass book. In Ex.R.2, the ledger sheet pertaining to the complainant, we do not find the deposit of Rs.35,000/- on 24.05.2007. As observed above only based on the transaction sheet as per Ex.R.4 and the challen, the ledger clerk has to make entry and it will be approved by the passing officer after the transaction of the said day is over. In the ledger sheet of the complainant, in case of deposit by cash it is written as by cash and challen number in bracket. As per this ledger of the complainant account after 07.05.2007 there is no transaction till 11.08.2007. After 07.05.2007, the drawel of Rs.10,000/- on 11.08.2007 and Rs.7,000/- on 24.08.2007 is also mentioned in the pass book Ex.C.1, but the balance shown in the ledger is not tallying with the entries made in the pass book at all. After 24.08.2007, though the complainant has made transactions till 04.04.2008 as per the ledger Ex.R.2, the complainant has not obtained the entries in the pass book Ex.C.1, why did not got made entries in the pass book is not explained by the complainant. In the absence of up to date entries in the pass book or knowing balance available in his account in the bank as on 23.04.2008, why he issued the cheque Ex.C.2 infavour of K.R.Narasimha Murthy for Rs.40,000/- is not forthcoming. Further, on 08.03.2008 he gave a letter to Opposite party as per Ex.C.6 about missing of Rs.35,000/- in the ledger without getting entry in his account. Complainant has issued the cheque for Rs.40,000/- though sufficient amount is not available in his account. Thereafter, nearly one year the complainant got issued a legal notice directly pleading that the entry is not made in the ledger of the Bank. 11. The contention of the advocate for the Opposite party that the collusion of the bank staff with complainant making entry to the pass book without depositing amount when there is no entry in the ledger and transaction sheet does not amounts to deficiency of service has to be accepted, because the Opposite party has taken action against the staff by suspending the staff members namely P.Puttaraju, N.Prakash and B.S.Jayaramu. On the basis of the report of the Opposite party Secretary as per Ex.C.7 and even case is filed before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies against them for mis-appropriation of the bank amount and other allegations. 12. In the decision reported in 2006 (2) CPR 319 in the case of M.S.Thahir Vs- Indian Overseas Bank has held that there is no case of deficiency of service on the part of the Bank, when the complainants employee used to misappropriate the money and manipulate counterfoils showing deposit of amount and employee colluded with the Bank officials and police case of fraud was registered and bank had taken action against its employees who were suspended. Therefore, a detail trial by a Civil Court is warranted to consider whether the complainant has deposited Rs.35,000/- on 24.05.2007 and whether the staff of the Opposite party Bank have colluded with the complainant in making entry in the pass book and whether the entries made in the pass book are similar to the entries made in the ledger and transaction sheet by the same officials. Since, the District Forum has to decide the complaint under summary trial and not the complicated question of facts and law. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the complainant is to be directed to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his remedy. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. The complainant is directed to approach Civil Court for his remedy. There is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of September 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
