At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners: Deepika Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate.
The case of the complainant who is the petitioner in RP No. 2173 of 2014 and respondent in RP No. 2160 of 2014 is that she had a savings account with the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is petitioner in RP No. 2160 of 2014 and respondent in RP No. 2173 of 2014. This is also her case that the pass book which the bank had issued to her was deposited by here with the bank manager for security reasons. When she went to the bank for withdrawing money from her account she was told that the original pass book had been lost. When she insisted on return of the pass book a new pass book was issued to her which showed a balance of only Rs. 855.35/- in her savings account whereas, she had a credit balance of Rs. 184500/- in her account of 04.08.1992. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, the bank having refused to pay what she claimed to be correct amount lying deposited in her savings account.
2. The complaint was resisted by the Bank which admitted that the complainant had an account with it. It was, however, stated in the written version that the complainant was in connivance with one Murlidhar Mishra, who was working as a cashier in the bank and after having withdrawn the money she filed a complaint. It was also stated in the reply that the Bank had terminated the service of Mr. Murlidhar Mishra.
3. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 41,031.95/- to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 15.06.1993 and compensation quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The Bank also preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 07.02.2014 the State Commission dismissed both the appeals, thereby maintaining the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved both the parties are before this Commission.
5. The case of the Bank is that the complainant is entitled to only a sum of Rs. 855.35/- whereas the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that she is entitled to Rs.103195.15 as per the entries made in the original pass book. The case of the complainant is thus based upon the original pass book which she claims was lost by the Bank and was later returned to her. I have perused the pass book which the complainant had filed before the District Forum. A perusal of the pass book would show that on 08.04.1992 a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in the account thereby increasing the balance to Rs. 115727/-. Thereafter there was a withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- on the same day thereby reducing the balance to Rs.75723/-. The pass book further shows that on 04.08.1992 a sum of Rs. 184500/- was credited in the account of the complainant by encashment of a FDR. If this is so, the balance in the savings account on that day should have been Rs.75723/- + Rs. 184500/- i.e. Rs.2,60,223/-. On the other hand the pass book shows a balance of Rs.1,08,723/- even after crediting of Rs.184500/-. Thus the entry made in the pass book is obviously incorrect/false. The next entry in the pass book shows withdrawal of Rs.2,000/-. If Rs. 2,000/- are deducted from Rs.108723/- shown as the balance as per the previous entry the remaining correct balance in the account should Rs. 1,06,723/-, but the credit balance shown after deduction of Rs. 2,000/- is Rs.88723/-. This clearly shows that even the next entry is incorrect/false.
6. As noted earlier there is a credit entry of Rs.184500/- in the account on 04.08.1992. The second entry thereafter is dated 28.07.1992. In fact, if the entries made after 04.04.1992 are carefully seen it is ex-facie evident that the said entries have not been made in a chronological order. In a Bank pass book the entries are always made in a chronological order. Therefore, the entry of the transaction made on an earlier date cannot succeed the entry of the transaction made on a subsequent date. Similarly, the entry of a later date cannot precede the entry of an earlier date. From whatever angle I may look at it, there is no escape from the conclusion that the pass book which the complainant filed and relied upon for the purpose of prosecuting her claim is not a true and genuine document and the same appears to be a false and fabricated document. Even the case of the complainant that she had deposited the pass book with the bank for security reasons cannot be believed, since the account holder would ordinarily keep the pass book with him. The pass book is not something which anyone would steal.
7. It is settled legal proposition that a person seeking to approach a court/forum necessarily come with clean hands and disclose all facts favourable or unfavourable to him. A person who basis his claim on a false statement or on a false document is not entitled to any relief from any court/forum, he having not come with clean hands and
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
having tried to obtain a favourable order on the basis of false and fabricated documents. Having based her claim on the pass book, which is found to be a fabricated and false document the complainant, in my opinion, is not entitled to any relief irrespective of the merits of her case. I, therefore, need not examine her case on merits and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove the impugned orders are set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.