Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. A/10/1248.  The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Parel, Mumbai in complaint case No. 71 of 2005.  By the said order, the District Consumer Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the opposite party-Bank to pay the amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest @9% per annum with the stipulation that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the rate of interest shall be enhanced by further 3%.  The State Commission has dismissed the appeal upholding the finding of the District Forum.

We have heard Mr. Amol Chitale, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to assail the orders primarily on the ground that the amounts were paid to the complainant on the strength of withdrawal slips and on presentation

-3-

of pass-book but he is unable controvert the factual position that the withdrawal forms did contain the signatures of the complainant-account holder rather the signatures on the withdrawal forms had been forged.  This would clearly show that the petitioner-Bank has not exercised due care in comparing the signatures appearing on the withdrawal forms which it was duty bound to do.  This clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  Both the fora below were justified in taking the view, which they have taken and directing the petitioner-Bank to compensate the complainant to the above extent.  The compensation awarded is also just and reasonable.  We see absolutely no ground for interference.

The revision petition is dismissed in limini.