JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant obtained an FDR of Rs. 4 lacs from the petitioner Bank, in his personal name on 03.03.2007.  The FDR was effective from 24.02.2007 and was to mature on 24.05.2007.  The case of the complainant is that on 24.05.2007, he visited the concerned branch and submitted the original FDR to the Bank, for renewal for a further period of six months by putting a signature on its back side.  Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.11.2007, the complainant claimed the amount of the FDR, but there was no response from the Bank.  The aforesaid letter dated 15.11.2007 was followed by a subsequent letter dated 17.11.2008 and a legal notice dated 24.11.2008.  Since there was no response from the Bank, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner Bank.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank primarily on the ground that the FDR was obtained by the complainant, after raising funds from one Dulux Polymer Industries and later, vide endorsement dated 24.05.2007, the complainant requested the Bank to transfer the proceeds of the FDR to the account of the Dulux Polymer Industries.

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 19.05.2009, directed the petitioner Bank to pay within 45 days, the amount of the FDR alongwith interest, compensation amounting to Rs. 3,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/-, to the complainant.

          Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal having been rejected by order dated 24.02.2014, the Bank is before us, by way of this revision petition.

4.      The case of the petitioner hinges primarily on the endorsement purporting to have been made on the back side of the FDR receipt.  Vide said endorsement, the petitioner Bank was instructed to credit the proceeds of the FDR to the account of the Dulux Polymer Industries.  As noted earlier, the case of the complainant is that he had signed on the back side of the FDR, for the purpose of getting it renewed and did not issue any instructions to the Bank to credit the aforesaid amount to the account of Dulux Polymer Industries.  It is also an admitted case that the aforesaid endorsement is not in the hands of the complainant.  The case of the petitioner Bank is that the aforesaid endorsement was made by an employee of the Bank on the instruction of the complainant.  However, the name of the Bank employee, who allegedly made the aforesaid endorsement on the instructions of the complainant, was not disclosed in the reply filed before the District Forum and no affidavit of any such employee was filed.  Once the complainant had taken the stand that he never instructed the petitioner Bank to credit the amount of the FDR to the account of Dulux Polymer Industries, it was incumbent upon the petitioner Bank to name the official, who made the above referred endorsement and file his affidavit by way of evidence.  This was more so, when the endorsement envisaged payment to the account of a person, other than the FDR holder. That having been not done, the petitioner Bank has failed to establish that the aforesaid endorsement of the FDR was made on instructions of the complainant.  As a result, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Bank wrongly credited the proceeds of the FDR to the account of Dulux Polymer Industries.  Consequently, the deficiency on the part of the petitioner Bank in providing services to the complainant cannot be denied.

5.      Even otherwise, based upon the evidences produced before it, the District Forum returned the finding of facts that the aforesaid endorsement was not made on the instructions of the complainant and that finding of facts was also endorsed by the State Commission.  It will not be open to us to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent finding of facts, in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction, unless it is shown to be illegal or perverse in nature.  In our opinion, it cannot be said that no reasonable person, acting on the material produced before the District Forum, could have returned the finding which the District Forum returned in this case.  Therefore, the aforesaid finding cannot be said to be perverse in nature.

6.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the State Commission and the revision petition is dismissed.