Petitioner Bank was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant is an authorized dealer of Bajaj Scooters and Motorcycles.  One Rakesh Kumar had purchased a motorcycle from the respondent by making the payment of Rs.42,200/- through Demand Draft No.844715 dated 16.3.2000 issued by the State Bank of India, Haridwar payable at Sonepat in favour of the respondent.  Respondent deposited the said Demand Draft in its account.  On 29.1.2001, respondent received a letter from the petitioner stating that the amount of Rs.42,200/- had been debited from is account for the reason that the said draft had been stolen from the premises of the State Bank of India at Sonepat.  Respondent, thereafter, visited the petitioner bank and lodged its protest.  Petitioner did not reverse the entries, aggrieved by which, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.42,200/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit of the Demand Draft by the respondent till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  State Commission, in its order, has held as under :

“From the record it reveals that Demand Draft No.844719 dated 16.3.2000 amounting to Rs.42,200/- issued by SBI, Haridwar in favour of complainant was handed over by Rakesh Kumar (who had purchased the motorcycle from the complainant) and the complainant had deposited the said draft in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sonepat for cash credit of the same against its account No.5367.  The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sonepat after getting clearance of the above said demand draft from State Bank of India, Sonepat had credited the same in the account of complainant.  However, on 29.1.2001 after a lapse of ten months, letter dated 29.1.2001 was received by the complainant, whereby the opposite parties informed the complainant that the amount of the above said draft had been debited from its account as the demand draft in question had been stolen from the premises of SBI, Sonepat.  Aggrieved against the action of the opposite parties the complainant repeatedly approached the opposite parties on account of wrongly debit of amount of Rs.42,200/- from its account, because once demand draft had been credited in complainant’s account after getting due clearance from State Bank of India, Sonepat, the complainant cannot be made to suffer due to default on the part of State Bank of India, Sonepat and as such the opposite parties had wrongly debited the amount of Rs.42,200/- from the account of complainant.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the authorities of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, as well as State Bank of India, Sonepat cannot escape from their liability in respect of credit of Rs.42,200/- towards the account of complainant as the demand draft was duly encashed and credited after getting its clearance from SBI, Sonepat.  Subsequent theft of demand draft has no concern with the complainant and the opposite parties had wrongly debited the amount from the account of complainant.”

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  Finding recorded by the State Commission is as per banking practice.  We find no infirmity in the same.  Dismissed.