Having heard Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Complainant, who is on caveat, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is without any substance. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly the pay-in-slip, both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate its stand that the delay in credit of the said amount was because of the reason that the Complainant had failed to mention the Account Number and the account holder's name on the pay-in-slip, at the time of deposit of the cheque. Both the Forums have rejected the stand of the Petitioner that the said particulars were filled up later. The said finding having not been specifically challenged as being perverse, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in Revisional jurisdiction, more so when the total amount involved in the case is a meagre sum of 50,000/-, which includes the litigation cost.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
(Before D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member)
Indian Overseas Bank
V
R.K. Sharma
Revision Petition No. 3414 of 2016
Decided on January 2, 2017
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2
Print Page
