HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

              This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2015 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda in D.F.C. case no. 27/2014 wherein Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the complaint case, dismissed the same on contest without cost.

              Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, the present appeal has been preferred.

              Brief facts of the case is that the appellant (being the complainant of the original case being D.F.C. case no. 27/2014 and hereinafter referred to as appellant) is a savings bank account holder in the respondent/bank. He deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- of different denominations at Gazole A.T.M. of the bank, through three envelops having Rs. 22,000/- (Rs. 1,000/- X 14 and Rs. 500/- X 16). Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 100/- X 40) and another envelops having Rs. (Rs. 100/- X 40) but the bank credited Rs. 22,000/- only instead of Rs. 30,000/- causing loss of Rs. 8,000/- to the appellant which prompted him to take recourse of the Forum concerned for want of deficiency in service causing loss of Rs. 8,000/-.

              Denial of insertion of Rs. 8,000/- with 16 pieces of Rs. 500/- denominations in the envelop containing Rs. 1,000 X 14 is the line of defence as adopted by the authority of the respondent/bank. The process of saving money through the A.T.M. is a recognized process now a days but the bank authority/respondent herein should be more transparent in dealing with hard earned money, deposited by a citizen and to keep in proper way so that nobody suffers from the faulty process of any machine, used for the purpose of keeping the accounts properly. Here the disputed issue is – whether the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (with 16 pieces of Rs. 500/- denominations).

              Ld. Trial forum in the impugned judgment observed that immediately it was detected that sixteen Rs. 500/- denominations were not in the proper envelop, as it was brought to the notice of the appellant but the reason best known to him why he took several days (17/18 days) to respond. There was no averment in the petition of complaint that the said disputed amount was put inside the envelop in presence of a witness Priyanka Bera (who was none but his daughter) and one Asim Roy, a Guard of the said A.T.M.

              Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the case found these lacuna in proving that the deficiency in proper service by the respondent/authority was the appropriate cause for such mischief. True it is that the Bank/authority did not dispute or disprove the entire deposit before it but at the same time we cannot forget that the customer of the Bank cannot be deprived of proper service though he is not absolved from any liability for achieving it being a conscious citizen of the country. Ld. Forum concerned while dealing with the fate of the present case pointed out certain grounds like delay in filing the complaint case, disclosure of the names of the witness to such disputed deposit as afterthought etc. Taking into consideration the ground of dismissal of the complaint as reflected from the impugned judgment being based on sound reasoning, we are unable to take a different view, rather we are of firm opinion that Ld. Forum concerned was justified in doing so. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed and the order impugned stands affirmed. No costs.