RAM CHANDRA CHAUDHURY vs State Bank of India

THIS appeal is under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order of the District Forum, Dibrugarh in C.P. Case No. 12/92. The judgment and order were delivered on 23.4.93 and were received by the appellant on 4.5.93. The Complainant''s petition was dismissed and hence the appeal.

THE appellant opened a Savings Bank A/c. No. 32/10512 with the Opposite Party, namely, State Bank of India, Namrup Branch. According to the appellant on 20.3.92 there was a balance of Rs. 10,079.00/-. In April, 1992, he wanted to withdraw some amount, but he was informed that between 22.3.92 and 30.3.92 most of the amount deposited was withdrawn. According to the Complainant after 20.3.92 he did not withdraw any amount. It has been alleged that due to negligence or collusion of the Bank the amount was withdrawn by some other person. THErefore, the District Forum was approached. From the impunged judgment and order, we find that the Appellant also approached the Police Authority and one Ramesh Prasad Singh was arrested by the Police and a case was duly registered. The matter is still under investigation and charge sheet has not been filed as the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was not received. The District Forum was of the view that in view of the allegations and counter allegations it will require a thorough investigation and as such the petition was not maintainable before the District Forum at the above stage of investigation.

From the record as well as impugned judgment and order, we find that the said Ramesh Prasad Singh was an inmate of the house of the appellant and he used to accompany the appellant at the time of withdrawal of the money as well as depositing any amount. As the matter was referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it would show that it was difficult to verify the signatures by a common man. Therefore, on these two grounds, namely Ramesh Prasad Singh was an inmate of the house of the appellant and the signatures could not be detected to be forged, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the Bank. Therefore, we held that the complainant''s petition was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. If the appellant is so advised, he may approach the appropriate Civil Court. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.