CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.383 OF 2007 Date of filing : 29/03/2007

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.176/2002 Date of order : 23/04/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, MUMBAI SUBURBAN

@ MISC.APPLICATION NOS.531 & 532/2007



Canara Bank

H.O.112, J.C.Road,

Banglore 560 002

Branch office

Bhandup, Mumbai 400 078 ………..Appellant/org.O.P.

v/s.

Smt.Kamala Leelabai

R.no.8, Mathew Kakade niwas

Village Road, Bhandup

Mumbai 400 078 ………Respondent/org.complainant



Corum: Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Hon’ble President

Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present : Mr.Sharad Bhatkar-Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.A.J.Chougule-Advocate as Amicus Curie for the respondent.

Respondent also present in person

O R A L O R D E R



Per Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Hon’ble President

Heard Mr.Sharad Bhatkar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.J.Chougule-Advocate as Amicus Curie for the respondent. Respondent is also present in person before us.

There is delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Misc. application no.531/2007 is allowed. Delay is condoned.

We carefully perused the judgement under challenge in the light of material placed on record. We are constrained to observe that the District Consumer Forum did not consider the documents filed on behalf of the appellant. District Consumer Forum also failed to consider facts disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. Without application of mind, District Consumer Forum has observed that the bank did not place on record best possible evidence in its possession. On the contrary, best possible evidence was placed on record by the bank. Bank disclosed all necessary particulars in the written statement and also in the affidavit.

Complainant filed affidavit by way of rejoinder. There is reference in the rejoinder affidavit dated 9/9/2004 about written statement and the affidavit filed on behalf of Canara bank. The complainant did not utter a word in the rejoinder affidavit dated 9/9/2004 that she had deposited cash amount of Rs.11,000/- in the branch office of Canara bank, Thuckalay. Today two counter foil bank receipts are shown to us. Xerox copies of the two bank receipts are taken on record and the original are returned to the respondent. Ld.Advocate for the respondent wants us to act upon these two receipts to hold that cash amount of Rs.11,000/- was deposited in the branch office at Canara bank, Thucklay.

On careful perusal of the counter foil bank receipts, it is clearly seen that complainant deposited Rs.11,000/- in the loan account bearing no.1402/1999. Amount of two demand drafts i.e. Rs.11,000/- was deposited in the Canara Bank’s Saving account no.21501. The complainant is under wrong impression that cash amount of Rs.11,000/- was deposited in her saving account and same was withdrawn by her on 22/4/2000. We are constrained to observe that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous. Judgement under challenge suffers from illegality. In the result, we pass following order:-

ORDER

1. Misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed.

2. Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.1000/-.

3. Impugned order under challenge is quashed and set aside.

4. Complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

5. Amount deposited by the appellant for obtaining stay order be returned to the appellant.

6. Misc.application for stay stands disposed of.

7. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.R.Khanzode) (B.B.Vagyani)

Judicial Member President