JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant/respondent, namely, Shiv Shankar Mahajan deposited a sum of Rs.51022 with the post office Bhankrota in Rajasthan, on 31.7.2009.  The case of the complainant is that when he obtained the statement of his account from the post office, he found that the aforesaid amount of Rs.51022/- had not been credited in the said account. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking payment of the aforesaid amount along with interest and compensation.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners which alleged that in addition to Savings Account No.797131, the complainant also had two RD accounts numbering 1503759 and 1503760 with the post office. This is also the case of the petitioners that the maturity amount of the aforesaid two RD accounts, along with Rs.150/- towards post maturity interest, was paid to the complainant but in the deposit slip, he filled up only the amount of Rs.51022/-, as a result of which, the receipt of the same amount was issued to him instead of giving receipt of Rs.51172/- (Rs.51022 + Rs.150). The deposit of Rs.51022/- was, therefore, denied by the petitioners.

3.      The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission.

4.      The contention of the petitioners in nutshell is that the complainant had in fact deposited Rs.51172/- inclusive of Rs.150/- paid to him as post maturity interest on RD accounts, on 31.7.2009 but due to a clerical mistake, a sum of Rs.51022/- was mentioned in the counterfoil.

5.      The complainant/respondent who is present in the Court states that in fact he had deposited two amounts in his post office  Savings Bank Account on 31.7.2009. The first deposit according to him was of Rs.51022/- and the second deposit according to him was of Rs.51172/-. He has placed on record today, photocopies of two separate receipts both dated 31.7.2009 and both purporting to bear the stamp of the post office. He also states that both the receipts were duly filed by him before the District Forum.

6.      In view of production of the photocopies of two receipts one for Rs.51022/- and the other for Rs.51172/- by the complainant/respondent, the plea taken by the petitioners cannot be accepted and consequently, there would be no ground to interfere with the view taken by the Fora below. If, however, the receipt of Rs.51172/- which the complainant has filed today in the Court along with the receipt of Rs.51022/- is found to be false on verification by the post office or if it is found that both these receipts were not produced by the complainant before the District Forum, as is stated by him today in the Court, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek recall of this order and revival of the revision petition on this ground. The revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. Both the photocopies of receipts – one for Rs.51022/- and the other for Rs.51172/-, filed today by the complainant in the Court be kept on record.