Judgment:
Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia, President-
1. Heard Mr. M. Kumar learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party/appellant (Bank for short) on limitation as well as admission matter. The delay of four days in filing this appeal is condoned.
2. After hearing Mr. Kumar for the Bank and carefully going through the impugned order and the other documents, we find no merit in this appeal.
3. According to the complainant/Respondent/Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, after crediting Rs. 50,000/-, the Bank issued a Fixed Deposit receipt no. TDR 696493 in his favour but the Bank is not paying the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit.
4. According to the Bank due to heavy rush and by mistake/inadvertence, TDR was issued and at the time of maturity, the proof of credit of such amount could not be found. Therefore, the Bank was not obliged to pay the maturity amount. Mr. Kumar submitted that the complainant did not produce any documents to show that he got the said amount credited.
5. It is not the case of the Bank that any fraud or forgery was committed by Mr. R.K. Pandey. There is nothing to show that shortage of the said amount was found, after issuing the TDR. In any view of the matter, the Bank is bound to honour the said fixed deposit. The learned District Forum after considering the entire matter in detail has correctly passed the impugned order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Appeal dismissed.