REKHA GUPTA

        Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.96 of 2015.

2.     Facts of the case as per the Petitioner/Complainant are, being a senior citizen and pensioner he had two accounts (1) Saving Bank Account No.0383000100576920 (2) Pension Account No. 038000100472174 in the Respondents/Opposite Parties’ Bank.  The first joint account number was in the name of petitioner and his daughter namely Paramjit Kaur while the second account number was in the name of petitioner only. It is alleged that on 16.2.2012, petitioner deposited ₹49,000/- two times in the A/C No. No.0383000100576920 in the respondents’ bank and the bank also made two entries of ₹49,000/- in the passbook and in this way, the petitioner deposited ₹98,000/- in the bank of the respondent and also received the receipt from the bank.  On the same day, i.e. 16.02.2012, petitioner also deposited ₹49,000/-, entries of the same had been shown in the receipt, which is in his possession, but the respondents had not entered the said amount of ₹49,000/- in  the passbook of the petitioner’s account no.038000100472174. The petitioner requested the opposite parties to make the entry of ₹49,000/- in the account no. 038000100472174 but they failed to do so rather they forcibly pushed the petitioner out from the bank and did not pay any heed to his request. The petitioner also made a written request on 15.04.2014 to the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh for recovery of ₹49,000/- along with interest, compensation and harassment. This complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer of the respondents’ bank at Phagwara on 25.3.2014. The petitioner also filed a separate application to the Nodal Officer regarding the matter, as he was not aware of the complaint, but to no effect. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum against the respondents praying therein that opposite parties may be directed to recover ₹49,000/- relating to the pension account no.038000100472174 and saving bank account no.0383000100576920. Besides it, petitioner also claimed the damages of ₹50,000/-.

3.     Respondents appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed the real facts from the Forum and was not entitled to any relief as claimed in his complaint. On merits, it was stated that Complainant—Dilbag Singh had tendered two vouchers for an amount of ₹49,000/- each for credit to his accounts no. 0383000100576920 in the name of Dilbag Singh and Paramjit Kaur and account no.038000100472174 in the name of the complainant on 16.02.2012. However, inadvertently, both the amounts were posted in one account i.e. 0383000100576920, which was standing in the name of Dilbagh Singh and Paramjit Kaur.  This fact was duly recorded in the bank record, including in the cash receipt/payment register as on 16.2.2012, wherein it was categorically mentioned that two amounts of ₹49,000/- were posted in the account No.  0383000100576920 at serial no.248 and 250. However, one voucher of ₹49,000/- was required to be posted in the account no. 038000100472174. Subsequently, on 26.5.2012, the petitioner raised the issue and after investigating the matter, one of the entries in Savings Account No.038300010057620 was reversed on 28.05.2012 and credited to the account no.038000100472174 of the petitioner, in accordance with the voucher and on his written request. Had there been any other third deposit, he would have raised the issue there and then. However, thereafter petitioner kept silent for a long time but later on he moved a complaint to the Circle Office of the Respondent No.1 with false allegations. All the facts were duly explained by respondent no.1 and the inspector of the Circle Office investigated the matter as per record and reported to Circle Head vide letter dated 14.11.2013. In this regard, the Circle Office, Kapurthala also gave detailed facts to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.11.2013. The crux of the facts was that the petitioner had deposited two vouchers of ₹49,000/- to be deposited  in his two separate accounts i.e. account no. 0383000100576920 and 038000100472174. However, inadvertently the Clerk of the respondent no.1 posted the said two vouchers in one account i.e., 0383000100576920 and after coming to know the error, the said entry was reversed and accordingly an amount of ₹49,000/- each were credited in the said accounts of the petitioner. Respondents denied all the other allegations of the petitioner raised in the complaint.

4.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (for short ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 24.12.2014, while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The opposite parties have produced two deposited vouchers Ex.OP1 to 4/1 and Ex.OP1 to 4/1-A which are regarding account No.038000100472174 & 0383000100576920. Both these vouchers are for ₹49,000/- each. In case the complainant had deposited ₹49,000/- twice in his account No. 0383000100576920 and another ₹49,000/- in his account No.038000100472174 then he should have been possession of three counters foils but he has not produced three counter foils. The opposite parties have produced cash receipt, payment register of 16.2.2012 Ex,OP1 to 4/11 wherein at serial No.248 and 250 relating to account No.0383000100576920  and two cash receipts of ₹49,000/- each are mentioned. In cash receipt register of 16.2.2012 there is no mention of any receipt of ₹49,000/- in account No.038000100472174 of the complainant. So it appears that inadvertently and due to mistake both the deposit of ₹49,000/- vide voucher Ex. OP1 to 4/1 and Ex.OP 1 to 4/1-A were posted only in one account No.0383000100576920.Whereas, ₹49,000/- were required to be posted in account No. 038000100472174 and further ₹49,000/- in account No. 0383000100576920. On raising an issue in this regard by the complainant entry of ₹49,000/-was reversed on 28.5.2012 and posted in the account No.038000100472174 of the complainant.   So it appears that due to mistake both the amounts were posted in the one account whereas both the amounts of ₹49,000/- were required to be posted in both the accounts of the complainant separately i.e. ₹49,000/- each in one account No. 038000100472174 and second account No. 0383000100576920. The complainant cannot drive any benefit due to above mistake of the official of the bank. Moreover the present complaint is time barred. The opposite parties have placed on record letter dated 26.5.2012 Ex.OP1 to 4/3 given by the complainant to the bank regarding posting of ₹49,000/- which were deposited on 16.2.2012 in his account No.038000100472174. So it means that on 26.5.2012 the complainant was aware that the above said amount of  ₹49,000/- has not been deposited in his account No.038000100472174. So cause of action if any, arose to the complainant at- least on 26.5.2012. The present complaint was filed on 22.9.2014 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of two years. Consequently, the present complaint is time barred.

7.      In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.”       

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner/ Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 5.11.2015 did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. While dismissing the appeal, the State Commission observed as under:

“11. As is clear from the pleadings, complainant had deposed only two vouchers of ₹49,000/- each, one was deposited in his saving bank account No. 0383000100576920 and other in pension A/c No. 038000100472174 and receipts are Ex.C-1. Ops have also placed on  the  record  those vouchers as Ex. OP-1-4/1 and OP-1 4/1-A. In both the vouchers, ₹49,000/- each was deposited in saving bank account No.0383000100576920 and pension account  No.038000100472174 whereas both the vouchers were credited in his saving bank account and later on vide another voucher on 28.5.2012 (Ex. OP-1-4/2) a sum of ₹49,000/- was withdrawn from his saving bank account and transferred to his pension account. In case complainant would have deposited two vouchers of ₹49,000/- each in his saving bank account and ₹49,000/-in his pension  account then he should have placed on the record three vouchers but 3rd voucher was not placed on the record. In fact complainant wanted to take advantage of the mistake on the part of employee of Ops, who had inadvertently both the vouchers credited in saving bank account of complainant and no amount was deposited in his pension account. Since he had the voucher of pension account, therefore, he was pressing that a sum of ₹49,000/- was deposited in his pension account but it was not credited in his account. To reconcile the discrepancy a sum of ₹49,000/- was withdrawn from his saving bank account on 28.5.2012 by OP Nos.1 & 2 and was transferred to his pension account. One entry of ₹49,000/- was therein his saving bank account after transferring one entry to the pension account. There is no other voucher with complainant depositing another sum of ₹49,000/- in the saving bank account, therefore, the version of complainant that he had deposited two vouchers of ₹49,000/- each in his saving bank account is incorrect version. In case there was some mistake on the part of Ops, which was reconciled later on otherwise there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. These facts were properly appreciated by the District Forum and had rightly dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. We agree with the findings so recorded by the District Forum and same are hereby affirmed. 

12.    In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.

7.     We have heard the petitioner in person.

8.     Petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the State Commission should be set aside as it is illegal and unlawful and is null and void because it is not as per the pleadings and is only based on the inquiries and false letters and vouchers of the bank. On our query from the petitioner, whether he would show us the 3 vouchers by which he has deposited two amounts of ₹49,000/- in his saving bank account No.0383000100576920 and the third voucher by which he had deposited ₹49,000/-in his pension account No.038000100472174. Petitioner/Complainant could only show us one voucher of ₹49,000/-deposited in his pension account No.038000100472174.   

9.     We have gone carefully gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner—Dilbag Singh had tendered two vouchers for an amount of ₹49,000/- each for crediting in his  two accounts i.e. Savings Account No.0383000100576920, which is in the name of Dilbag Singh and Paramjit Kaur and in his Pension Account No.038000100472174, which is in his sole name on 16.02.2012. From the record, it is evident that the respondents inadvertently credited and posted both the amounts in Saving Bank Account No. 0383000100576920.

10.   Respondents’ Bank has supported these facts by producing two deposit vouchers and the cash receipt and payment register dated 16.2.2012 before the District Forum. The petitioner on the other hand has failed to produce the purported three counters foils by which he had made three deposits of ₹49,000/- each on 16.02.2012. The petitioner on 28.5.2012 then raised the matter regarding non entry of ₹49,000/- in his Pension Account No. 038000100472174. On investigating the matter, the respondents’ bank realize their error and reversed one entry of ₹49,000/- from the Saving Bank account and credited the same to his Pension Account No.038000100472174. The copy of transfer voucher is on record and respondents also produced the record of both accounts, showing two deposits of ₹49,000/-each in Saving Bank Account No.0383000100576920 on 16.2.2012 and later on reverse entry of one credit of ₹49,000/- on 28.5.2012 from this account and credit of the same in the Pension Account No. 038000100472174 on the same day i.e.28.05.2012.

11.   Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to show that on 16.02.2012 he had deposited three amounts of ₹49,000/- each i.e. two in his Saving Bank Account and one in his Pension Account. He has also failed to reason as to why the petitioner would deposited  two amounts of ₹49,000/- in his Saving Account by means of two separate vouchers on the same date. In our view, the petitioner is obviously trying to take the benefit of the error committed by the officials of the respondents’ bank in crediting both the amounts to their Saving Bank Account inspite of the fact one amount of Rs.49,000/- had to be deposited in Saving Bank Account number and the second amount of Rs.49,000/- was to be deposited in his Pension Account of the petitioner separately.  

12.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said  power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”.

13.   Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed and we re-affirm the order of the District Forum by dismissing the complaint.