Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

The present revision petitions bearing no. 2798 of 2023 and 2800 of 2023 are proposed to be decided by a common order being involving similar questions of law and facts. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the respondent/the complainant/ Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') in revision petition bearing no 2798 of 2023 and the respondent/the complainant/ Smt. Koslya Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') in revision petition bearing no 2800 of 2023 who are the complainants in the consumer complaints have opened saving account in the petitioner/the opposite party/ The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') with an account no 1431 and account no 3405. The respondents have deposited Rs. 12,000/- on 24.07.2013 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 01.08.2013 respectively. The receipt for the amount deposited was issued and the entry for the same has been reflected in the passbook. The respondents when enquired about the account balance came to that there is no entry of the amount deposited by him i.e. Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-. The conduct of the petitioner comes under deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

                   1.1. The respondent/ Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan and the respondent / Smt. Koslya Kanwar being aggrieved filed separate consumer complaints titled as Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. bearing CC no. 84/2016 and Smt. Koslya Kanwar V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. bearing CC no. 14/2016 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bundi (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum"). The respondent / Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan and the respondent / Smt. Koslya Kanwar claimed Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively with interest along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint.

2. The petitioner filed separate replies before the District Forum in the consumer complaints titled as Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Smt. Koslya Kanwar V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. wherein denied allegations of the respondents as stated in the complaint.

                   2.1 The petitioner in reply filed in Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. stated that although an account was opened in the name of the institution, there were specific rules and procedures governed the deposit and withdrawal of funds. All transactions in this account were subject to these regulations. The account, bearing number 1431, reflected a credit balance of Rs. 1 ,279/- as on 31.03.2015. After this date, no record of any deposit or withdrawal is available. Furthermore, there is no evidence of deposit of Rs.12,000/- on 24.07.2013, either in the cashier's scroll or in the institution's account. Therefore, the alleged deposit of Rs. 12,000/- on 24.07.2013 at the Dabalana Branch Office by the petitioner is denied.

                   2.2 The petitioner in reply filed in Smt. Koslya Kanwar V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. stated that it is admitted that Account No. 3405 was opened in the name of the respondent and that the entries of deposits and withdrawals made by the respondent have been regularly recorded in the said bank account. It is further admitted that whenever entries are made in the passbook, they are duly signed. However, there was no entry of deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.08.2013 in the bank's records. The passbook presented by the respondent does not bear any signatures in support of the alleged deposit entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- on that date. The deposit receipt submitted by the respondent appears to be fabricated, as the account title is shown as 'Koslya Kanwar,' while the receipt bears the name 'Koslya Bai.' Moreover, the bank seal affixed on the receipt pertains to the year 2011, whereas the recorded date is 01.08.2013, which indicates that such a receipt could not have been issued by the bank. Additionally, the receipt lacks the signature of the bank manager, rendering it inadmissible. It is denied that the respondent ever informed any bank officials regarding the alleged incident. However, the bank has lodged a complaint with the police concerning embezzlement committed by certain bank employees. In this regard, the bank invited objections from the public and customers, many of whom submitted their objections. The veracity of these objections is currently under investigation under Section 57(2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Act by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, as ordered by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Furthermore, an FIR has been registered by the bank in connection with the matter.

                   2.3. It is also stated that on 06.06.2014, the bank again invited objections regarding certain bank transactions, and the respondent also submitted her objection. The examination of these matters is still pending. Whether the alleged amount was actually deposited or not cannot be determined merely on the basis of the respondent's objection. All the accounts in question are presently subject to detailed scrutiny in connection with the on-going investigation into the embezzlement. The petitioner prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3. The District Forum in Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd order dated 10.07.2019 observed that the respondent, being the Cashier of the Institution, is responsible for operating the savings bank account. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that he lacks the authority to file a complaint before this Forum. The bank has denied the deposit of Rs. 12,000/- on 24.07.2013; however, the respondent has submitted a photocopy of the cash deposit receipt for Rs. 12,000 along with the passbook of the concerned account. Both the receipt and the passbook bear the official stamp of the bank. The entry for the deposit of Rs. 12,000 is clearly entered in the passbook. Therefore, it stands established that the respondent deposited Rs. 12,000/- on 24.07.2013. The said deposit is not reflected in the bank's official records, it is evidently due to the bank's internal shortcoming. On the basis of the deposit receipt, the bank cannot deny its obligation to repay the respondent's deposited amount. Consequently, the bank is found to have committed a deficiency in service by failing to return the deposited amount of Rs. 12,000/-. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the respondent is allowed. The bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent within a period of one month, in accordance with the applicable rules. The said amount shall carry interest from the date of deposit, i.e., 24.07.2013, as per the prescribed rate. Additionally, the bank shall compensate the respondent with Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000 toward the cost of the complaint.

                   3.1 The District Forum in Smt. Koslya Kanwar V The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. in order dated 05.03.2020 observed that the respondent has submitted the passbook and deposit receipt pertaining to his bank account. The deposit receipt bears the official stamp of the bank as proof of the deposit, and a corresponding entry of the deposit dated 01.08.2013 is reflected in the passbook. The deposit receipt further shows the bank stamp along with initials of the bank employee on the left side. From these documents, it is evident that the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the bank on 01.08.2013. This deposit is not recorded in the bank's records which clearly constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Based on the deposit receipt, the bank cannot deny its liability to repay the respondent the deposited amount. Therefore, the bank has been held responsible for deficiency in service by failing to return the deposited sum. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The bank is directed to pay the respondent the deposited amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-within a period of one month. The said amount shall carry interest from 01.08.2013 in accordance with the applicable bank rules. Furthermore, the bank shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.07.2017 and 05.03.2020 passed by the District Forum, filed First Appeal bearing no FA/91/2019 titles as The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd V Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan and First Appeal bearing no FA/33/2020 titles as The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd V Sint. Koslya Kanwar before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'). The State Commission vide orders dated 02.02.2023 & 02.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned orders') dismissed the Appeal and upheld the orders dated 10.07.2017 and 05.03.2020 passed by the District Forum. The relevant portion of the impugned orders is reproduced as under verbatim:

First Appeal bearing no FA/91/2019

6. The Appellant/defendant Bank has stated in the reply that there is no entry in the scroll book of cashier about deposit of Rs.12,000/= but they have not stated that the receipt issued by them was fake or does not relate to the bank. In this way it would be concluded that the complainant institution has deposited Rs.12,000/ on 24-07-2013 in the appellant bank and he is entitled to receive this amount. The learned DCDRF, Bundi has allowed the complaint after considering all the issues and there is no error in the order passed. Consequently the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

                   "The appeal filed by the appellant/respondent against the respondent/complainant is dismissed and the order dated 10- 07-2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Forum, Bundi in the complaint no. 84/2018 in Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan Versus The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd is confirmed.

                   (Extracted from translated copy)

                   First Appeal bearing no FA/33/2020

4. In the instant case this is undisputable that the cashier of the appellant/defendant bank has embezzled the amount. There is a credit entry of Rs.1,00,000/- in the pass book of the complainant On 01-082013 and in the cash deposit receipt there is bank stamp affixed with initials of the cashier. In such a situation, when the complainant had deposited Rs.l,00,000/=on l-08-2013and a receipt of the same was issued then the bank employee not deposited the amount in the bank books and embezzled the amount, then the deficiency of the bank will be presumed. In this way it is concluded in the instant case, that the learned District Consumer Commission has passed a right order in which no error has been found. Consequently the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

                   ORDER

                   The appeal filed by the Appellant/defendant against the complainant/respondent is dismissed. The order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bundi in Complaint no. 14/2016 on 05-03-2020 is confirmed.

                   (Extracted from translated copy)

5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present Revision Petition bearing no 2798 of 2023 titled as Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd V Maharaj Shri Amardas Ji Khaki Smriti Sansthan & Revision Petition bearing no 2800 of 2023 titled as The Bundi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd V Smt. Koslya Kanwar under section 58(1) (b) of the Act to challenge the impugned orders primarily on grounds that the impugned orders were perverse and devoid of merits being passed against the law and facts. That the State Commission has failed to properly examine the documents on record and, as a result, has rendered the orders that are perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The State Commission has failed to consider that the respondent being an institution was not authorized to file the complaint or supporting affidavits, as it is not a juridical person competent to institute such proceedings. Furthermore, the complaint was instituted by the cashier, who lacked the requisite authority to do so. No authorization letter or document conferring such authority was ever produced before the Consumer Fora. The petitioner also challenged the impugned orders on other grounds. It was prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

6. We have heard Mr.Umesh Nagpal & Mr. J.P Sharma, Advocates (VC), counsels for the petitioner. We have also considered the relevant records including the order passed by the District Forum, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission. We have also perused written submissions submitted on behalf of the petitioner in both these petitions but the respondents has filed his written submissions only in revision petition no. 2800 of 2023 and none also appeared on behalf of both the respondents on the date of arguments.

7. The counsel for the petitioner in revision petition no 2798 of 2023 besides referring the factual background of the case argued that the cash deposit receipt dated 24-07-2013 is forged. The receipt produced by the respondent is evidently manipulated, as it originally pertains to the year 2011, but the date has been altered by handwriting to reflect the date as 24-07-2013 as there was no legitimate reason to insert the date manually. Furthermore, the alleged receipt does not bear the signature or authentication of any bank official, thereby casting serious doubt on its genuineness. The copy of the passbook submitted by the respondent further reveals that the account in question was opened in 2006, with no transactions recorded after 30-10-2006. The account remained non-operative thereafter, and no further deposits or withdrawals were made. The entry showing a deposit of Rs. 12,000/- does not bear the signature of any bank authority, which raises substantial suspicion regarding the authenticity of the alleged transaction. In addition, the absence of any credited interest entries further indicates that no genuine activity occurred in the said account, reinforcing the doubt regarding the veracity of the respondent/complainant's claims. It was argued that the present revision petition be allowed and complaint filed by the respondent be dismissed.

7.1 The counsel for the petitioner in revision petition no 2800 of 2023 besides referring the factual background of the case argued that the cash deposit receipt dated 01.08.2013 filed by the respondent is forged. The said receipt appears to be a bank receipt originally issued in the year 2011, which has been manipulated by altering the date by hand to 01.08.2013. There was no necessity to write the date manually, and moreover, the receipt does not bear the signature or authentication of any bank official. Further, the copy of the passbook produced by the respondent clearly reveals that the account was opened with an initial deposit of Rs.500/- on 09.05.2012, and no subsequent entries or transactions have been recorded thereafter. The said passbook copy also lacks the signature or verification of any authorized bank personnel. There exists a strong suspicion regarding the veracity of the respondent's claims, as it remains unconfirmed whether the writings and entries in the passbook were made by any bank official. Additionally, the alleged balance of Rs. 1,00,500/- shown in the passbook, as against the opening balance of Rs.533/-, is inconsistent and indicates manipulation, since there are no recorded entries of interest credited to the account. These circumstances collectively suggest that the passbook and the related documents have been forged.

8. It is an undisputed fact that the cashier of the bank has embezzled the amount in question. A credit entry of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- is reflected in the respondent's passbook dated 24.07.2013 and 01.08.2013, and the corresponding cash deposit receipt bears the bank's official stamp along with the initials of the cashier. In these circumstances, when the respondent had duly deposited Rs.12,000/- on 24.07.2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.08.2013 and a valid receipt was issued, but the said amount was not entered into the bank's books due to the misconduct of the employee, the bank's deficiency in service is clearly established. Therefore, it is concluded that the learned District Consumer Commission as well as the State Commission passed a well-reasoned and proper order, free from any error.

9. The District Forum and the State Commission have given almost concurrent findings on merit. The present revision petition is filed under section 58(1) (b) of the Act which provides that the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute where it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or material irregularity. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction is limited and it is accepted legal proposition that National Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties like an appellate court. The Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta V United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited and such powers can be exercised only if there is some prime facie jurisdictional error appearing in the order. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity V State Bank of India & others, AIR 2022 SC 577 held as under:-

The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

10. The State Commission while passing the impugned order did not commit any jurisdictional error or material irregularity. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which is well reasoned and have been passed on appropriate appreciation of material on record. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld and the present Revision Petition being devoid of merits are dismissed along with pending applications, if any.