Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

This appeal is directed as against the order passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint no.71/2005 decided on 29/10/2010.  Said complaint was allowed and the appellants are directed to pay an amount of `55,000/- with interest @ 9%.  Appellants are further directed that within a period of two months if the amount is not paid, further interest @ 3% p.a. will be chargeable by way of penal interest.  Appellants are directed to pay `5000/- by way of mental agony and `5000/- by way of cost. 

Appellant is a Co-operative banking institution registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and having a license under the Banking Regulation Act as applicable to the Co-operative Societies. The appellants are the original opponents, while respondent is an original complainant.  It is an admitted fact that the respondent is a customer of the appellant and respondent is having a bank account bearing no.8802 with the Bhandup branch of the appellant.  As on 02/5/2002 amount of `55,000/- was deposited by the respondent in the said saving account and, thereafter, at no point of time respondent has withdrawn an amount from the said account. However, it is found by the respondent that on 24/5/2002 `23,000/-, on 04/6/2002 `24,000/- and on 18/6/2002 `8,000/- have been withdrawn and, thus, a total amount of `55,000/- has been withdrawn.  The respondent has carried out correspondence with the appellant bank and appellant bank has informed that on the above referred dates the amounts have been withdrawn as stated above by tendering withdrawal slip to the bank.  It is a case of the appellant that the said amounts have been withdrawn by the respondent and, therefore, grievance of the respondent is baseless.  No doubt all the documents in respect of withdrawal were given to the respondent. Thereafter, respondent has filed a consumer complaint.

It is an admitted position on record that these withdrawals are not reflected in the passbook, which is possessed by the respondent/complainant.  It is also admitted that whenever amounts are withdrawn by use of withdrawal slips instead of cheque, it is obligatory for the customer to produce the passbook and get entry made in the passbook in respect of withdrawal. In absence of passbook, withdrawal is not permissible by use of withdrawal slip. In view of this admitted position one thing is certain that even though appellants are possessed of withdrawal slip, since said withdrawal is not reflected in the passbook, the bank permitted withdrawal to person tendering withdrawal slip even though such person is not possessed of passbook at the time of withdrawal. However, it is specific case of the complainant that complainant had never been with the appellant bank for the purpose of withdrawal and affidavit to that effect is on record. There is no counter affidavit rebutting this part of the material on record and, therefore, only inference follows is that whenever withdrawals were carried out, respondent must not have been present before the appellant for the purpose of withdrawal. Apart from that we have perused the specimen signatures on record. On perusal of specimen signatures and on comparison with the said signatures on the disputed withdrawal slip, a bare look at the admitted and disputed documents shows that the signatures on the disputed documents are not tallying with the specimen signatures.  Apart from this visual expression of the State Commission, we have on record the expert evidence. While complaint was pending in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has sent the disputed documents and admitted documents to the hand writing expert and hand writing expert has also given an opinion that the specimen signatures are not tallying with the disputed signatures. That report when it was filed it was not disputed by the appellant bank.  Appellant bank has not filed affidavit challenging the said report.  Not only that, after receiving hand writing expert report, appellant bank has not made efforts by sending disputed documents to get it examined by some other expert. Net result of the conduct of the appellant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is that they have acquiesced the report submitted by hand writing expert and relying upon such material, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has decided the complaint and directed the appellant bank to return the amount.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum so as to entertain and admit the appeal. Except this, no other submissions are made before this State Commission for consideration. We find that the order which has been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference is called for.  Hence the order:-

                               ORDER

Appeal stands summarily rejected.

Registrar is directed to transfer 50% of the amount which has been deposited by the appellant in this Commission while filing appeal, to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum so as to make payment to the original complainant after the period to approach National Commission is over. In respect of rest of the amount respondents may proceed for execution.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.