Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 8,1993 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar dismissing the appellant’s complaint being Complaint No. 31 of 1993.

2. Appellant No. 2 (Appellant for short) who is original complainant No. 2 before the District Forum had Savings Bank Account No. 17912 with Amba Chowk branch of Bank of India at Bhavnagar (bank for short). He had opened this account on January 12,1987 by depositing Rs. 15,000/-. He deposited Rs. 5,000/- on July 9, 1992 and with this deposit has credit balance in the said Savings Bank Account on the said date was Rs. 77340.17. On January 8,1993 the appellant went to withdraw Rs. 15,000/- from his aforesaid account. At that time he submitted his Pass Book alongwith the withdrawal form. When he was given back the Pass Book, he found that besides the entry for Rs. 15,000/- withdrawn by him, there were to entries prior to that which were for two sums of Rs. 9,800/- and Rs. 20,000/- which he had not withdrawn. According to the appellant there was unauthorised withdrawal of total sum of Rs. 29,800/-. When he made enquiries with the bank for the aforesaid withdrawal of Rs. 29,800/- he was not given proper reply. According to the appellant the Pass Book had all along remained with him and the Bank could not have allowed withdrawal of aforesaid two amounts totalling to Rs. 29,800/- without production of pass book. Therefore, the Bank was guilty of deficiency in service by permining unauthorised withdrawal from his aforesaid Bank account. In the background of the above facts, the appellants approached the District Forum for recovery of the aforesaid amount , of Rs. 29,800/- together with interest, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of business. The bank resisted the complaint by filing written statement Exh. 7. It was not disputed that on July 19,1992, there was credit balance of Rs. 77,640.17 in the appellant’s Savings Bank Account. Rs. 9,800/- and Rs. 20,000/- were withdrawal from the Savings Bank Account by submitting withdrawal forms. According to the Bank, since the signature on the withdrawal forms tallied with the signature on the Bank records, the payment of aforesaid amounts was made. There was thus no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The Bank, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The appellant filed his affidavit in support of his complaint. The bank did not cross examine the complainant who had produced documents in support of the contentions raised in his complaint. No evidence was led on behalf of the bank before the District Forum. None of the parties sought opportunity to lead further evidence. In other words, both the parties had ample opportunities to lead evidence and whatever evidence they wanted to lead was led before the District Forum.

4. The District Forum, however, by its impugned judgment and order held that it was necessary to record voluminous evidence, to prove as to who actually went to the Bank, who signed the withdrawal forms and who signed on the backside of the withdrawal forms. According to the District Forum, it was also necessary to compare the signatures of the appellant with disputed signatures. Therefore it was not possible to decide the disputes involved in the complaint on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record. No complaint was also made to the police. Under these circumstances, in the opinion of the District Forum, the appellant should approach the Competent Court for seeking appropriate relief. In this view of the matter, the District Forum dismissed the appellant’s complaint. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the District Forum, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. As pointed out above, whatever evidence the parties wanted to lead before t