ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. MEMBER
1. This revision petition arises out of the order of the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam, whereby the State
Commission upheld the order of the District Forum.
2. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the
District Forum are as follows:
The complainant is an account holder Home Savings Safe
Account, of the opposite party, Central Bank of India. According to him,
he had to his credit a sum of Rs. 1,17,340-55, whereas on an enquiry,
he was informed by the Bank that a sum of Rs. 985.55 was only lying to
his credit in his account. It is alleged that on his bringing this fact to the
notice of the Opposite Party No. 1, the Branch Manager, he was assured
in writing that the difference in the amount would be credited to his
account by 6th September, 1997. It is also alleged that on his presenting
a cheque for Rs. 1,17,000/-, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient
funds, and (SIC) no alternative he had to file an FIR with the Police,
Dibrugarh Police Station. It is also the case of the Complainant that the
Opposite Party No. 1, without his instructions, had issued cheque book
in his name to one of its employees who had been caught red handed
when he was trying to withdraw Rs. 7,000/- by forging his signatures. In
view of the above, he had filed a complaint before the District Forum
claiming (a payment of Rs. 1,16,355.00 (b) award of interest at the
rate of 18% p.a. on that amount: (c) compensation as the learned
Forum deemed fit: and (d) all costs of the litigation. The District Forum
upon hearing the parties, adverting the evidence led by them held
that due to negligence and incompetency of the opposite party, Bank,
the complainant had suffered pecuniary loss and the action on the part
of the bank amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant
was entitled to the reliefs sought by him. In view of the above findings
the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,16,355/-
which amount was fraudulently withdrawn by the staff of the Bank,
along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 28.10.1997 till the date
of realisation. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 5,000/- for
compensation mental agony and harassment, and Rs. 1,000/- for the
costs of litigation.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the
Opposite Party approached the State Commission which by its order
upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Now
the Opposite Party Central Bank of India, is petitioner before us.
4. We have heard Mr. Vijay Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner. We have also gone through the detailed order of the District
Forum which was subsequently upheld by the State Commission. From
a bare perusal of the Order of the District Forum it is clear that the
complainant had been subjected to a lot of inconvenience due to the
fraudulent and negligent acts of the staff of the Bank. The bank should
have acted with care when the complainant had brought to the notice of
officials of the bank that the amount that was lying to his credit was less
than what it ought to have been. The District Forum after having
thoroughly gone into the evidence led by the parties and after hearing
the arguments and came the right conclusion, as stated above. The
State Commission committed no error in concurring with the decision of
the District Forum. Therefore, keeping in view the concurrent findings
reached by both the Fora below, we do not find it a fit case for us to
interfere in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismiss the same._