- (1.) AS all these appeals involve common questions they are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals arise from the orders in the complaint cases as detailed below: S. No. Appeal No. Complaint No. Order dated. 1. 561/2003 35/2001 5.11.2001 2. 562/2003 34/2001 5.11.2001 3. 713/2003 38/2001 31.12.2001 4. 714/2003 41/2001 31.12.2001 5. 715/2003 65/2001 31.12.2001 6. 716/2003 62/2001 31.12.2001 7. 717/2003 39/2001 31.12.2001 8. 718/2003 43/2001 31.12.2001 9. 719/2003 37/2001 31.12.2001 10. 720/2003 61/2001 31.21.2001 11. 721/2003 36/2001 31.12.2001 12. 725/2003 45/2001 31.12.2001 13. 728/2003 40/2001 31.12.2001 14. 1025/2003 153/2002 3.1.2003 All the aforesaid complaints have been dismissed by the aforementioned orders by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the District Forum for convenience). The complainants feeling aggrieved have preferred these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
(2.) UNDISPUTABLY , the complainants/appellants had savings Bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts with respondent Dena Bank. According to the complainants, different amounts were in balance in the said accounts. However, respondent Bank refused to repay the amounts to the complainants, on the false pretext that there was embezzlement of amount in collusion with the employee of the respondent Bank Madan Mohan Dwivedi and other officer of the Bank. The complainants, therefore, prayed that the amounts in balance in their savings Bank accounts or fixed deposits be directed to be refunded to them with interest thereon.
(3.) THE complaints were resisted by the respondent Bank. In substance, the stand of the respondent Bank was that the complainants colluded with Madan Mohan Dwivedi and other officer of the bank, and had withdrawn much more amount than was deposited in their accounts. It was alleged that Madan Mohan Dwivedi was permitting the complainants and other account holders to withdraw the amount by indulging in underhand dealings and colluding with the account holders. It was, therefore, averred that the complainants were not entitled to get any amount from the respondent Bank. The District Forum in the impugned orders in the aforementioned complaints, found that there appears to be overdrawal of amount by the complainants as would be disclosed from the documents including withdrawal slips filed on record. It was noticed that the signatures on many of the withdrawal slips on comparison by the Handwriting Expert, were found to be that of the complainants in many cases. Accordingly, it was held by the District Forum that the refusal by the respondent Bank to repay the amount did not amount to deficiency in service. The complaints were accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the complainants to seek redressal, from the competent Civil Court.;