STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 09.10.2015 Date of Final Hearing: 02.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2025 SC/5/A/15/12 Punjab National Bank A Corporate Body Laksar Branch, District Haridwar Through the Chief Manager PNB Laksar Sh. Ajay Singh (Through: Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Sh. Satyaveer @ Satender Kumar S/o Sh. Bhaktawar M/s Satya Oil Traders Laksar, Ward No. 1, Ambedkar Nagar PS Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar (Through: Sh. Praveen Kumar, Advocate)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated

21.11.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 19 of 2013 styled as Sh. Satyaveer @ Satender Kumar vs. Punjab National Bank, Laksar, Haridwar, wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint directing the opposite party – Bank to pay Rs. 16,00,000/- alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment within one month from the date of judgment and order.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has a current account No. 4132002100024124 with the opposite party Bank in which he deposited Rs. 8 Lacs on dated 10.04.2012, Rs. 4 Lacs on dated 19.04.2012 and Rs. 4 Lacs on dated 10.05.2012. Thus, the complainant deposited total amount of Rs. 16 Lacs in the said account. Upon investigation by the complainant, it was found that the amount deposited on the above specified dates, has not been credited to his current account by the opposite party Bank. The complainant after finding discrepancies submitted a complaint to the opposite party Bank on dated 26.10.2012, but inspite of assurance, the Bank did not accept his application and did not deposit the amount of Rs. 16 Lacs in his current account. The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party Bank on dated 06.12.2012. However, the opposite party Bank failed to respond, prompting the complainant to file a complaint before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party Bank has filed its written statement alleging that the complainant has not filed the complaint on correct facts. The complainant has claimed / alleged to have deposited Rs. 16 Lacs on different dates and after a lapse of 5 to 6 months, he is reporting that the said amount is not credited to his current account which is ridiculous as SMS alert facility has been provided to the complainant in his current account since 19.07.2011. The answering opposite party has also stated that there are no entries corresponding to the said amount in the Bank’s daily cash receipt / payment register for the specified dates in respect of the complaint. The answering opposite party further stated that the complainant has filed the complaint case on false grounds with the intention of taking undue gains by hiding the real facts and has not made concern Bank’s cashier as a party to the case, hence he is not entitled to get any relief from the answering opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is false and baseless.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 21.11.2014 in the above terms. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the opposite party has preferred the present appeal as appellant alleging that the impugned judgment and order of the District Commission, Haridwar dated 21.11.2014 is against the law and facts and is perverse, hence it is liable to be set aside. The Commission below has erred in relying on the receipts dated 10.04.2012, 19.04.2012 and 10.05.2012 showing the deposits of to