Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party (which is herein after referred to as appellant), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04/03/2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum of Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.145/2014, by which the said complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The respondent herein filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur against the appellant making the allegation in brief is as under.
The respondent opened Saving Account bearing No.60024450660 with the appellant/Bank. He deposited Rs.50,000/- on 30/01/2014 with the appellant/Bank. He withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 20/02/2014 and Rs.20,000/- on 24/02/2014. After going through the entries in the pass book he came to know that Rs.27,000/- have been withdrawn from his account on 15/02/2014 by somebody by submitting Aadhar Card as proof of identity, where as the said amount was given without accepting the pass book by the appellant. The appellant did not provide copies of withdrawal slip and Aadhar Card though demanded by respondent. The appellant refused to credit Rs.27,000/- to his account after complaint was made to the appellant. The respondent also reported the incident to the police. The appellant thus rendered deficient service to the respondent. He therefore claimed Rs.27,000/- with interest, compensation and cost from the appellant by filing the said consumer complaint.
3. The District Forum, Nagpur issued notice of the complaint to the appellant. The appellant received that notice and hence its representative appeared before the District Forum. However though District Forum granted adjournment from time to time to the appellant for filing reply/written version, it did not filed the same. Therefore District Forum proceeded without written version of the appellant.
4. The District Forum after hearing the respondent and considering the evidence brought on record passed the impugned order. The District Forum accepted the aforesaid case of the respondent and directed the appellant under impugned order to pay Rs.27,000/- to the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15/02/2014 till its realization by him and also to pay him compensation of Rs.3000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-. The District Forum also directed that the aforesaid order be complied with within one month from the receipt of copy of that order and in case of default, the aforesaid amount will carry interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a.
6. Thus feeling aggrieved by that order, the original O.P. has filed this appeal. We have heard advocate Mr.Vasant Narsapurkar for the appellant and Mrs.Rohila for the respondent. We have also perused the entire record of the appeal. The learned advocate of the appellant made submission in brief is as under.
i) Withdrawal slip filed in appeal by the appellant shows the identical signature of the respondent as appearing on other admitted withdrawal slip dated 12/03/2014 submitted by him to the appellant/Bank. The amount of Rs.27,000/- was withdrawn by the respondent under his own signature which tallied with his specimen signature maintained by the appellant/Bank.
ii) The respondent did not make any complaint for five days though he had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- subsequently which shows that the amount of Rs.27,000/- was withdrawn by him earlier.
iii) The respondent maintained two Aadhar Cards and both the Aadhar Cards are produced by the appellant in appeal and it shows that the respondent is not of a good character.
iv) The respondent is in habit of making different signatures on withdrawal forms and he accordingly admitted the same in his subsequent application dated 12/03/2014 produced on record of appeal by the appellant.
v) The appellant could not file written version before the District Forum as there was no communication in between the Branch Manager of the appellant and its advocate.
vi) The District Forum below has not considered the material on record properly and erred in partly allowing the complaint. Therefore the impugned order may be set aside and the complaint may be dismissed.
7. On the other hand the learned advocate of the respondent made submission in brief is as under.
i) The withdrawal slip for Rs.27,000/- was not signed by the respondent and his signature also does not tally with his admitted signature.
ii) The documents filed for the first time in appeal by the appellant can not be considered.
iii) The respondent holds only one Aadhar Card which was produced before the District Forum and the Aadhar Card and withdrawal slip of Rs.27,000/- produced in appeal for the first time by the appellant are false and forged documents and therefore they can not be relied on.
iv) The appellant did not file any reply before the District Forum so as to oppose the consumer complaint and therefore the appellant can not raise any defence in the appeal for the first time. The impugned order is legal, correct and proper and appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. We find that the appellant has not given convincing explanation about its not filing reply/written version before the District Forum. Therefore in the absence of any reply of the appellant before the District Forum, we find that the defence raised for the first time in appeal by the appellant that appellant himself had withdrawn that amount by submitting withdrawal slip alongwith Aadhar Card can not be accepted.
9. There was no document before the District Forum to show that the signature of the respondent appearing on the disputed withdrawal slip of Rs.27,000/- tallied with his specimen signature maintained by the appellant. Moreover we also find that though there is a delay of five days in raising objection about withdrawal of Rs.27,000/- by unknown person from the saving bank account of the respondent, the said delay can not be said to be fatal to the claim of the respondent. The respondent had made it very clear that after going through entries in the pass book that Rs.27,000/- have been withdrawn by some unknown person from his bank account, he immediately made complaint to the appellant as well as to the police about the same. The said natural conduct of the respondent also supports his case.
10. There is no document on record to show that the appellant made complaint to the police against the respondent about the allegation of preparing two different Aadhar Cards and by withdrawing Rs.27,000/- with the help of one Aadhar Card from the Bank by cheating the Bank.
11. It is also seen that the appellant did not take step on receiving the objection of the respondent by sending the disputed slip of withdrawal alongwith the specimen signature of the respondent to the handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion about the same. It can not be said by open eyes that the signatures appearing on the disputed withdrawal slip of Rs.27,000/- produced in appeal by the appellant is identical with his admitted signature appearing on other withdrawal slip of Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore the appellant can not raise the ground in the appeal that signatures appearing on disputed slip are of the respondent only. In the absence of any evidence on record of the complaint before the District Forum, we are not inclined to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate of the appellant. We therefore find that the District Forum has correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and passed the legal, correct and proper order. We find no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
// ORDER //
- Appeal is dismissed.
II. No order as to costs in the appeal.
- Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of
cost.
