RESERVED   

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                       APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2015N

              (Against judgment and order dated 20-08-2015 in Complaint

           Case No. 424/2011 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow )

1. State Bank of India

Branch Nishatganj

Lucknow

Through Branch Manager

2. State Bank of India

Moti Mahal Road

Lucknow

Through Chief General Manager

                                                                                                      ...Appellants

                                                           Vs.

Raj Bahadur Singh

S/o Sri Badlu Singh

R/o Gram Dohrijit

Post Sangrikala

District Gonda/Railway Hospital

Badshahnagar, Lucknow

                                                                                            ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Appellant        :    Sri Nitin Khanna, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :    Sri Raj Bahadur Singh in person.                 

Dated : 05-01-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

          PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 20-08-2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 424/2011; Raj Bahadur Singh V/s State Bank of India and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint partly and ordered opposite parties to pay jointly and severally Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of

:2:

complaint till the date of payment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered opposite parties to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of the case to complainant.

Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties of complaint have filed appeal before State Commission.

Learned Counsel Sri Nitin Khanna appeared for appellants.

Respondent/complainant Sri Raj Bahadur Singh appeared in person.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as respondent in person and perused impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum as well as records.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the complaint filed by respondent/complainant is false and incorrect. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is erroneous and against law.

It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Consumer Forum has committed error in drawing adverse inference against appellants on the ground of non production of footage of C.C.T.V.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of State Bank of India V/s K. K. Bhalla and reported in II(2011) CPC 292(NC).

The respondent has appeared in person and opposed the appeal. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and evidence.

The respondent has submitted that Rs.15,000/- has not been withdrawn by him.

We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants as well as respondent in person.

Version of complainant is that he went to A.T.M. of appellants installed at Badshahnagar on 11-11-2011 and made attempt to draw money but t