1.       The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the orders dated 16.03.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals (FAs) No. 176/2018, 180/2018 and 179/2018 in which orders dated 22.12.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Oraiya (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaints (CCs) no 200/2013, 199/2013 and 202/2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders dated 16.03.2020 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents in the said FAs 176/2018, 180/2018 and 179/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent(s) were Complainants before the District Commission in the CCs no 200/2013, 199/2013 and 202/2013.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 04.01.2021.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 03.07.2023, 17.07.2023 (OP) and 21.10.2022 (Complainants) respectively. The execution of impugned order was stayed vide this Commission’s order dated 04.01.2021 subject to petitioner depositing the entire decretal amount along with Interest with the District Forum. Application for condonation of delay is allowed after considering the reasons stated therein.

4.       Brief facts of the case in RP/1047/2020, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

1. The Complainant filed Complaint No. 200/2013 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging misappropriation of Rs.1,85,499/- from their bank account. The OP bank denied the allegations, claiming that the complainant themselves made the transactions reflected in the bank system. The district forum initially ruled in favour of the complainants, but the OP appealed to the State Commission. The Commission set aside the district forum's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the OP was unable to appear before the district forum as scheduled, and the forum proceeded ex parte, issuing an order against the bank. The bank appealed to the state commission, but the appeal was rejected on the grounds that there were no grounds for interference with the district forum's order.

2. As regards RP/1048/2020 and RP/1049/2020, the Complainants filed two separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint No. 199/2013 pertained to a joint bank account with account number 1632, alleging misappropriation of Rs.10,28,778/-. Complaint No. 202/2013 related to another joint bank account with account number 1263, alleging misappropriation of Rs.5,97,523/-. The OP argued that the allegations of misappropriation were unfounded and that the bank system showed a different account balance. The district forum found in favour of the complainants as the OP (Bank) had not produced the withdrawal form as evidence. The OP appealed to the State Commission, which remanded the case back to the district forum for further proceedings. However, OP was unable to appear before the district forum as scheduled, leading the forum to proceed ex parte and issue an order against the OP. The OP filed another appeal with the State Commission, but the appeal was rejected on the grounds that there were no valid grounds for interfering with the district forum's order.

5.       Vide Order dated 22.12.2017, in the CCs no. 200/2013, 199/2013 and 202/2013 the District Forum has admitted the complaints of complainants against OPs for recovery of the misappropriated amount and Interest @7% p.a.

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 22.12.2017 of District Forum, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 16.03.2020 in FAs No. 176/2018, 180/2018 and 179/2018  has dismissed/disposed off the appeals, slightly amending the order of the District Forum by ordering that the bank should return back misappropriated amount to Complainants along with interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of its final payment and also pay towards litigation expenses and towards mental torture.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 16.03.2020 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:-

(i)      The OP states that the district forum failed to understand the true intent of the state commission's order dated 07.10.2017, which directed the district forum to allow both parties to present evidence regarding the withdrawal forms and decide the case according to the law. The OP contends that the district forum should have provided an opportunity for the parties to produce evidence and consider the documents. Additionally, the district forum made an error by proceeding ex parte against the bank on the first date after receiving the order of remand on 13.12.2017. That the district forum mistakenly believed that the case needed to be decided immediately, resulting in an unfair proceeding in the absence of the bank.

(ii)     The forum below failed to recognize that the complainant was not prejudiced by the alleged non-production of the "withdrawal forms" by the OP. The remand order issued by the State Commission on 07.10.2017 stated that the OP bank had already submitted the necessary withdrawal forms in 2015 along with their previous appeal. That the complainant already had possession of these documents and only a simple verification process was required. Additionally, the forum below erroneously concluded that the OP did not provide the withdrawal forms with their application dated 20.12.2017. That the District Forum had already issued an ex parte order against the OP on 20.12.2017, effectively denying them the opportunity to present any further evidence or documents before the forum. Therefore, unless the OP's application for the recall of the order was granted, the OP's ability to produce the requested documents or evidence was effectively rendered futile.

(iii)    The forum failed to acknowledge the genuine reasons for the non-appearance of the OP on 13.11.2017, which were beyond the control. The OP did not cause any significant delay, and the application for the recall of the order was promptly made but rejected on the same date.

8.       Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

(i)      Counsels for Complainants argued that the present petition filed by the OP appears to be an attempt to salvage their situation and protect their interests. Upon a thorough examination, it becomes evident that the petition lacks merit and is an abuse of the judicial process. That the court's time should be utilized for genuine cases that warrant legal intervention, rather than for frivolous petitions. According to settled legal principles, appellate courts should exercise caution and interference with lower court orders should be done sparingly. Such interference is justified only when there has been a clear misuse of power by the lower court or when a grave injustice has been inflicted upon a party. In the present case, neither of these conditions is met, and thus, there is no justification for this Hon'ble Court to grant indulgence to the OP.

(ii)     Counsels for OP argued that the approach taken by the District Forum in this case was flawed and biased. It made a serious error by presuming facts without sufficient evidence. The Forum failed to consider the conduct of the Complainant who did not raise any objections to the "Withdrawal Forms" despite having copies of them since 2015. The Forum should have verified these issues through proper evidence instead of relying on unfounded assumptions. There was no significant delay on the part of OP. The "Withdrawal Forms" were filed in 2015, and the Order of remand was issued by the State Commission on 07.10.2017. However, the remand order was not received by the District Forum in time for the scheduled appearance on 13.11.2017. The (OP) bank's representative encountered an accident on the way to the Forum, further hindering their appearance. Despite the OP's request to grant an opportunity and not proceed ex parte, the Forum rejected the request and passed a judgment against the bank on 22.12.2017. The State Commission failed to recognize the misconceived approach of the District Forum and overlooked the need for proper evidence. The Complainant's attempt to avoid evidence and seek unjust claims is evident in their actions.

9.       The case of Petitioner/Bank is that it is the Respondents/Complainants themselves who have withdrawn the money through various withdrawal forms, copy of which have been produced by them and allegation of misappropriation of funds in their accounts is baseless. Petitioners have claimed that the withdrawal forms were filed in 2015 itself along with the earlier Appeal no. 364/2015 and it was upon consideration of these withdrawal forms that order of remand was passed by the State Commission on 07.10.2017. It is important to note that the complainants, in their complaint before the District Forum or reply/synopsis before the State Commission and National Commission, have not taken a categorical stand that they have not signed the disputed withdrawal forms and/or their signatures on these withdrawal forms are the forged one. In their written arguments, the Respondents state that petitioners herein had failed to prove their plea of withdrawal by themselves. Mere production of withdrawal forms does not prove that Respondent herein has withdrawn the money himself. Petitioners have not presented any proof that signature on the withdrawal forms and account opening form/specimen signature as per bank records belong to the same person i.e. the Respondent herein.

10.     However, we find that prima facie, the signatures on disputed withdrawal forms and non-disputed withdrawal forms appear to be same and these also appear to tally with the specimen signature on the account opening forms. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is essential to examine this critical documentary evidence and give a definite finding as to whether these disputed withdrawal forms have been issued by Complainants themselves or not and/or whether these forms bear signatures of Complainants or not. The orders passed by the District Forum on 22.12.2017 were ex-parte. The petitioners have been able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for their non-appearance before the District Forum on 20.12.2017. On their subsequent appearance on 21.12.2017 itself, the District Forum ought to have granted them an opportunity to present their case on merits.

11.     Upon careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties, we are of the view that justice would be best served by granting the Petitioners/OPs an opportunity to present their case, along with crucial evidence in the form of withdrawal forms before the State Commission. As a result, we hereby set aside the Order dated 16.03.2020 of the State Commission and order dated 22.12.2017 of District Forum and remand the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing and presenting evidence to both parties. However, this is subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000, to be paid by the petitioner herein, to the Respondents herein, in each of the case.

12.     Both the Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 31.08.2023.

13.     Copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the State Commission and District Forum within a week.

14.     All the RPs viz. RP/1047/2020, RP/1048/2020 and RP/1049/2020 stand disposed off accordingly. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.