The regular operation of the appellant's bank account and the authenticity of the original documents and signatures influenced the court's decision in dismissing the appeal.

ORDER

Arun Kumar Goel, President - Complaint No. 45/2007 filed by the appellant has been dismissed by District Forum, Kullu, vide order dated 18.8.2007. Hence, this appeal by him.

2. Following are few material facts regarding which learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance. The appellant was having a Saving Bank Account No 15747 with New Bank of India at its Manali Branch. With the merger of New Bank of India with the respondents, appellant was given Saving Bank Account No. 17130001001157473 by respondent No. 1. As per averments made in the complaint by the appellant on 11.10.2006, he had a balance of Rs. 92,461.25. On 19.10.2006, he deposited Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 and withdrew Rs. 50,000 also on this date itself. Therefore, according to him the balance should have been Rs. 1,72,461.25 in his aforesaid account on 19.10.2006. However when he got his pass book, he was shocked to learn that a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 has been wrongly transferred from his account to the account of someone else without his consent. Thus, this amount was misappropriated by the respondents. When called upon, they could not furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding this transaction. In this background, he filed the complaint for being reimbursed in the sum of Rs. 1,15,000 with 12% interest, besides Rs. 25,000 as damages and cost of litigation.

3. While resisting the complaint of the appellant, stand of the respondents is that the credit balance in the account of the appellant on 11.10.2006 was Rs. 1,22,461 25. On this date, he deposited Rs. 30,000. This amount having been deposited on 19.10.2006 was denied, however, it was admitted that Rs. 1,00,000 was deposited on this date and a sum of Rs. 50,000 was withdrawn on 19.10.2006. Further case of the respondents is that on 14.9.2006, a sum of Rs. 70,000, on 16.9.2006 a sum of Rs. 35,000 and on 19.9.2006 another sum of Rs. 10,000 was wrongly withdrawn by the appellant from the Saving Bank Account of Santosh Kumar through payment vouchers cash under his own signatures. Further case of the respondents is that the appellant had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,15,000 from his Saving Bank Account on 19.10.2006 through transfer vouchers signed by him. Copies of statement of the account of the appellant and of Santosh Kumar are placed on the record as Annexures 7 and 8 respectively. Annexure-R.10 is the copy of transfer voucher of Rs. 1,15,000 of dated 19.10.2006. Originals of Account Opening Form, 3 loose cheques in the sum of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 35,000 respectively, are there at pages 44 to 49 of the complaint file. In addition to this cheques of Rs. 50,000 dated 19.10.2006 and of Rs. 60,000 dated 6.9.2006 and of Rs. 15,000 of dated 9.10.2006 from his own account No. 15747 as detailed in the pleadings of the parties are there at pages 50, 51 and 52 of the complaint file.

4. District Forum below after being satisfied that the amount of Rs. 1,15,000 was transferred through transfer voucher above referred, has dismissed the complaint after further coming to the conclusion that this amount had been withdrawn by the appellant from the account of Santosh Kumar under his own signatures.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the stand of the respondent-bank regarding his client having withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,15,000, as aforesaid under his signatures was not correct when he had denied his signatures on the loose cheques whereby this amount was debited to his account and credited to the account of Santosh Kumar. While buttressing this submission, he further submitted that the withdrawal on the basis of withdrawal form/cheques is not allowed unless a request is made along with pass book. Therefore, in the absence of there being any evidence to that effect, the amount could not have been allowed to be withdrawn from the account of Santosh Kumar as claimed by respondents. In addition to this, it was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that to cover up their acts of malfeasance as we