A consumer complaint was filed in this case by the complainant, who is petitioner herein, before the District Forum on 13.08.2004 against the OP Bank praying for directing the Bank to deduct the amount of Rs.14,073.09 paisa as penalty and interest so charged from the payment coupon and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost and also for an interim direction to OP Bank not to interfere with his Savings Bank Account in the OP Bank. According to the petitioner, in the month of January 2003, he verified the statement of payment of his credit card issued by the OP Bank and found that the OP Bank had entered three false entries of US Dollars amounting to Rs.14,073.09 paisa. Thereafter, he intimated the OPs that he hardly purchased anything in USD and also asked the OP Bank to show all the vouchers of the items shown to have been purchased. On 29.12.2003, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP Bank informing that he was willing to pay the balance amount on his credit card statement after deducting the disputed amount of Rs.14,073.09 paisa. However, the OP No.2 made a lien from the complainant in respect of Savings Bank Account, which was lying with the OP No.1. Treating this as deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, the aforesaid complaint was lodged. On being noticed, the OP Bank resisted the complaint and filed a written statement in which it was submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of the OP Bank and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. On appraisal of the issues and the documents filed before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove his case beyond doubt and hence dismissed the complaint against the OP Bank. On the matter being carried to the State Commission through an appeal, it did not find any favour with the State Commission either and it dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by its impugned order dated 04.05.2006 which is under challenge through the present revision petition before us. In its order, the State Commission has observed that even though the petitioner has made a number of allegations against the OP Bank while claiming deficiency in service on their part, the petitioner has failed to produce any document or other evidence in support of those allegations. While discussing the case of the petitioner, the State Commission has specifically observed as under:- “(A) The Complainant in the Forum below and the Appellant before the Commission Shri Rabindra Kumar Paul does not cite the Credit Card Agreement he signed prior to the issue of the Credit Card issued to him by the Respondent and, therefore, the conditions precedent thereto and the applicable rules thereunder are not known and revealed, on the basis of which the dispute is required to be looked into and adjudicated. (B) Also the Appellant does not cite the agreement he executed with the Respondent leading to his opening of the SB A/c with the Respondents and conditions thereto and also to show and/or establish that the said SB A/c had any lien or not with the unpaid clause in the Credit Card A/c of the Appellant with the Respondents. (C) The Appellant also does not produce vouchers for actual expenditure he claimed to have made on his given Card A/c on the relevant period, duplicates of which he had and payment copies of which were with the Respondents but copies of which could have been procured by the Appellant had he applied for the same in terms of applicable rules in time on payment or otherwise, as provided. (D) In absence of these as stated in the foregoing, the complaint becomes devoid of any substance and proof and the burden of proof for establishing the complaint lying on the Complainant in the Forum (Appellant here) below, the complaint fails totally and abysmally. (E) The Appellant’s argument in the WNA for production of the paid vouchers and the agreement for establishing the lien on his SB A/c is hollow and lacks merit because it was squarely his responsibility to adduce these to support his complaint in the Ld. Forum below.” 2. Keeping in view the above discussions, the State Commission held that “the complaint was devoid of any merit and substance and had no rudimentary proof or any support of evidence and, therefore, was not maintainable. The impugned judgement of the Ld. Forum below reflected right adjudication of the dispute and this Commission agrees with such finding.” 3. We agree with the view taken by the Fora below. It is not under dispute that the credit card statements in question were received by the petitioner on time from the OP Bank. It is also admitted that if any of the contents of the statement in question are disputed or appear to be erroneous, the report regarding the discrepancy was required to be made within 21 days of the statement date to the Bank. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent Bank that even though the statements in question pertained to the months of January/February 2003, details of the alleged discrepancies were furnished by the petitioner vide its letter dated 29.12.2003, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-B on the record. The counsel has further submitted that while the petitioner filed a complaint disputing the entries of payments in USD, he has not produced any evidence to support his allegations before the Fora below and even in his letter of 29th December 2003 to the OP Bank, he was not sure of his allegations in respect of which he has stated as under:- “Your statement dated 29.01.2003 and 28.02.2003 sent to us that $ US worth Rs.6,925.36 and Rs.7,147.73 respectively in Indian currency has been enchased and spent by me. But to the best of my knowledge these $ US has never been encashed by me.” (Emphasis provided) 4. It is cardinal principle of law that one who makes an allegation is required to prove it beyond doubt. We are convinced that the petitioner failed to prove his allegations regarding the alleged discrepancies in the credit card statements and the Fora below had rightly dismissed his complaint. We do not find any deficiency on the part of the OP Bank to adjust the outstanding amount against the petitioner on his credit card from his account held by the Bank. Revision petition being devoid of any substance is liable for dismissal. It is dismissed accordingly. No costs. | 
