JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The complainant in Consumer Complaint No. 947 of 2015 is a statutory authority set up under the Provisions of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974.  The said complainant invited quotations from Banks for investment of the surplus funds to the extent of Rs.800 crores for a period of one year.  In response to the said notice, the opposite party  namely Dena Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) offered interest @ 9.99% per annum for a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 350 crores for a period of 366 days.  Thereupon, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.350 crores to the bank through RTGS on 19.03.2014.       Vide letter dated 19.3.2014, alleged to have been sent by Fax, the bank was requested to issue Term Deposit Received for Rs. 350 crores.       On 21.3.2014, an additional sum of Rs.1.50 crores was transferred by the complainant to the Bank through RTGS and the bank was requested to issue the Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the complainant.  The said letter dated 21.3.2014 is also alleged to have been sent by Fax.  The bank issued 45 Fixed Deposit Receipts (Annexure P-5 (Colly) to the complaint).

The complainant received a letter dated 05.7.2014 from the Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit-I, CB,CID, Mumbai informing it that a fraud had been committed in respect of its Fixed Deposits with the bank and an amount of Rs.45 crores had been siphoned off.  When the complainant contacted the bank to ascertain the status of the said Fixed Deposit Receipts, it was informed that the said Fixed Deposit Receipts were not original.  Vide letter dated 10.7.2014, the bank informed the complainant that they had found that an overdraft account had been opened in its name and in the said overdraft account there was an outstanding of Rs.45.23 crores against the fixed deposits.  It was further stated in the said letter dated 10.7.2014, that the original Fixed Deposit Receipts duly discharged by the complainant were held by the Branch and the matter of creation of overdraft had been referred to the CBI for investigation.  Vide letter dated 15.7.2014, the Bank forwarded the copies of the documents relating to the opening of the overdraft account and grant of the loan against the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the complainant.  The complainant reiterated to the bank that it had not applied for grant of any overdraft facility nor had it collected the cheque book from the bank.  The bank was also asked to authenticate the Fixed Deposit Receipts which were in the possession of the complainant.  The complainant handed over all the 45 Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs.351.50 crores to the bank, vide letter dated 28.11.2014.  On 02.1.2015, the bank informed the complainant that the signature on the said Fixed Deposit Receipts did not match with the signature of the bank officer.

On maturity of the Fixed Depo