Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay of 3 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. 2. Briefly stated, the short point involved in this case is that on 27.12.1999, the complainant who is petitioner herein, deposited a sum of Rs.10,01,000/- in his savings bank account with the OP Bank and thereafter issued a cheque for Rs.10,00,600/- for issuance of a pay order of Rs.10 lakh by the OP bank in favour of M/s Crystic Resins India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant visited the Bank at 2.45 p.m. but was surprised to see that the pay order had already been handed over to one Shri Om Parkash. Alleging this conduct on the part of the OP Bank as deficiency in service, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. Based on the appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum vide its order dated 04.06.2010 dismissed the complaint both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. In its well-reasoned order, the District Forum, while dismissing the complaint observed as under:- “7. Even on merits, the allegation of the complainant does not seem to be wholly correct. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,600/- with the respondent bank on 27.12.99 and on the same day an application form was submitted for obtaining the pay order and that form has been submitted by one Om Parkash, whose name was later on struck off and the name of Ram Kishan – complainant was written in his place, vide Annexure-C. On the same day, the pay order was collected on behalf of the complainant by Om Parkash, who according to the complainant was representative of the complainant and had been visiting the bank on earlier occasions for making transactions on behalf of the complainant. This is also borne out to some extent from the letter Annexure-F, which was written by the bank to the complainant, according to which Om Parkash got the pay order at the instance of the complainant. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that Om Parkash was not an unauthorized person and had fraudulently collected the pay order from the respondent bank on behalf of the complainant, the later could have immediately made a protest/complaint either verbally or in writing to the bank who could have immediately stopped the payment of the pay order to M/s Crystic Resins India Pvt. Ltd., who actually got the amount of pay order through clearing house and the clearing took four days. The complainant submitted the complaint in writing against the respondent bank for the first time on 15.06.2001 i.e. after a period of more than one and half years of the alleged delivery of his pay order to an unauthorized person named Om Parkash. If Om Parkash was not an associate of the complainant and had not collected the pay order at the instruction of and on behalf of the complainant, there was no reason for the complainant to remain silent for this long period of more than one and a half year. The silence of the complainant for such a long duration and the signature of Om Parkash being available on the demand draft application form speak that the pay order was delivered by the respondent bank to Om Parkash, who was a representative of the complainant. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same in appeal before the State Commission which vide its impugned order dated 30.08.2010 has confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal in limine and hence the present revision petition before us. 4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the orders of the fora below. In spite of the fact that the complaint in question came to be filed beyond period of limitation laid down by law, the District Forum has taken pains to consider the same on merits and by its well-reasoned order, some portion of which is reproduced by us above, unsuited the complainant both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. The appeal of the petitioner before the State Commission has also been dismissed. We do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error on the part of the fora below which would justify our interference with their concurrent finding of facts. In the circumstances, we dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs. |
