JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) Late Smt. Shakuntala Jain, wife of the complainant Subodh Kumar Jain and mother of Nidhi Gupta and Neha Jain deposited a sum of Rs.3,53,649/- with a Society namely Central Bank of India Karamchari Vetanbhogi Samiti Ltd. having its office at Jain Nagar, Idgah, Meerut City, Uttar Pradesh. The case of the complainants is that the said society was managed by the employees of Central Bank of India. The amount deposited by late Smt. Shakuntala was not paid on maturity of the deposit. The complainants therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the bank as well as the society as the opposite parties in this complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the bank as well as by the society. In its reply, the petitioner bank denied having any kind of relationship with the society and claimed that it was not liable to pay the amount deposited with the society. -3- 3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, against the society as well as the bank, the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. No appeal was preferred by the society against the order of the District Forum. 4. It is not in dispute that the deposit was made by late Smt. Shakuntala with the society and not with the bank. The society being a separate entity, the petitioner bank cannot be liable for repayment of the despot made with the society, even if the office bearers of the society were only bank officers as is alleged by the complainant. If the bank officers form a society, accepts deposits in the society and do not repay the same, it is the society and not the bank, which would be liable to repay the deposit along with interest. By no stretch of reasoning, the petitioner bank can be held liable to repay the payment which was made to the society and not to the bank. The deposit was not accepted by the bank employees on behalf of the bank. It was accepted on behalf of the society, in their capacity as the office bearers of the society. The impugned orders therefore cannot be sustained and are set aside to the -4- extent they are directed against the petitioner, Central Bank of India. The impugned orders, to the extent directed against the society, however stand affirmed. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
