ORDER

A.K. Tiwari, Presiding Member—This appeal by the opposite party/appellant is directed against the order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vidisha (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.138/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been allowed.

2. The case of the complainant/respondent in brief is such that in the year 2006 he had obtained loan from the opposite party/appellant bank for purchase of tractor for which loan account no.63003897247 was opened. Since he is less educated, he used to deposit the loan amount after getting filled deposit slip from Shri Nigam, Assistant Manager of the bank. On 02.03.2009 when he reached to Shri Nigam to deposit Rs.1,90,000/-, he was busy and the cash counter was to be closed, at his instructions he got filled the deposit slip for depositing Rs.1,90,000/- from the person standing nearby and gave that slip along with amount to Shri Madho Wadekar, cashier who after counting received the amount and after affixing seal and appending signatures given counter slip to him and due to heavy rush he was asked to get entry done in the passbook later on the basis of counter slip. Later on entry was not made in the passbook. He therefore gave an application on 22.04.2009 to the Branch Manager, on which he was informed that there is no record of depositing the said amount in his account and therefore, no entry can be made. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party bank, he therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief of deposit of Rs.1,90,000/- in his account and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation.

3. The opposite party-bank resisted the complaint on the ground that on 02.03.2009, the complainant did not deposit any amount in his loan account, on the counter slip possessed by him, the account number was written later. The complaint was taken into consideration and when it was found that no amount was deposited in his loan account, entry was not made in the passbook. The opposite party-bank denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. The District Commission after hearing parties allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party bank to deposit Rs.1,90,000/- in complainant’s loan account no. 63003897247 and also to pay compensation Rs.1000/- and costs Rs.500/- to the complainant. Hence the opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. On going through the record, we find that this appeal was dismissed on merits by this Commission on 10.04.2013 and the order of the District Commission was maintained. Against the said order dated 10.04.2013 of this Commission, the opposite party-bank has filed a Revision Petition No.3186/2013 before the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 01.09.2015 allowed the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 10.04.2013 remanding the matter back to this Commission to first decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the appellant and then to decide the appeal after being giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

7. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant bank argued that the complaint is of civil nature. As per bank records, no amount was paid on 02.03.2009 in the respondent’s bank account. In fact, the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- deposited on 02.03.2009 was deposited in KCC account no. 63023204772 of one Tulsiram, who informed the bank he lost his counter slip regarding said payment. Since this fact came in the knowledge of the bank later, therefore, the bank has filed affidavit of Tulsiram along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The complainant/respondent filed a criminal complaint against the bank and the enquiry by the police is going on in such circumstances, when criminal proceedings are pending, the complaint cannot be maintainable before the Commission under the Consumer Pro