10-03-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.

          Nobody is appearing in this case on behalf of the complainant/ respondent and therefore it was fixed for ex-parte hearing.

2.       Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the O.P./ appellant-Bank submitted that the signature on the  counterfoil slip filed by the complainant in support of her case that she deposited the cheque of Rs. 6,200/- with the Bank, was not authentic. He further submitted that the complaint case was time barred.

3.       According to the complainant she deposited a Cheque of Rs. 6,200/- with the Bank on 9.8.2008 but it was not credited in her joint account. She approached to the Bank on several occasions. A letter dt. 1.10.2009 was also sent. As nothing was done by the Bank, a legal notice dated 16/17.2.2010 was issued. In reply, the Bank called her and her husband for enquiry. Inspite of all this, when the said amount was not credited, the complaint case was filed on 27.8.2010.

4.       In the circumstances it can not be said that the complaint was barred by limitation.

5.       The Bank’s contention that the signature on the counterfoil of Bank pay in slip was not authentic, is not acceptable as the onus was on the Bank to prove such fact, which the Bank failed to discharge.

6.       Mr. Jaiswal, also submitted that there was no such transaction in the Bank records (Annexure-4) on the date of deposit of the cheque.

7.       Such statement of Bank is not a proof that the complainant, did not deposit the said cheque with the bank. In support of such contention she produced the counterfoil of Bank receipt. The Bank could not prove that it was not issued by the Bank.

 8.      In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.  

        Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

           Ranchi,

           Dated:-10-03-2015