National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab & Sind Bank vs Jasbir Singh Bhogal on 9 December, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 11/02/2019 in Complaint No. 452/2018 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. PUNJAB & SIND BANK THROUGH ITS MANAGER, SH. NARESH TOLANI , AGM , BANK HOUSE 21, RAJENDRA PLACE DELHI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JASBIR SINGH BHOGAL S/O. LATE S. GURDIAL SINGH, R/O. NO 1712/9, NEW DEEP NAGAR , HAIBOWAL KALAN , CHUHARPUR, LUDHIANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Appellant : : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Rzya Sharma, Advocate Dated : 09 Dec 2022 ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 11.02.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 452 of 2018.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the 'bank') and for the respondent (the 'complainant'). We have also perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 11.02.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
3. Briefly, as per the appraisal made by the State Commission it is a proved fact that an amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh was fraudulently and illegally withdrawn from the complainant's savings account with the bank by using fake cheques ("- - - Undoubtedly, money belongs to complainant and he is entitled to this amount, which was illegally withdrawn from his account due to negligence of OPs by means of above cloned and fake cheques. The proper procedure has not been maintained leading to wrongful withdrawal of this amount from the account of the complainant.- - -"). And, admitting to the same, the competent authority within the bank had itself approved the complainant's claim for the said amount ("- - - The claim of the complainant was approved by competent authority of the OP-bank for an amount of Rs. 28,45,000/- as per applicable guidelines. - - -"). However, since the complainant did not furnish 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' to the satisfaction of the bank, the bank did not release the said amount. The complainant then approached the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the complaint as under:
"- - - In view of above circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.28,45,000/- to complainant as illegally withdrawn from his account with interest accrued thereupon as admissible as per RBI rules from the date of withdrawal till its actual payment. The complainant is also held entitled to recover composite amount of compensation and cost of litigation of Rs. 70,000/- from OPs in this case. It is made clear that complainant is to furnish indemnity bond and satisfaction letter to OP/bank, attested by Executive Magistrate to safeguard the interest of OP/bank with regard to this disputed amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and OP/bank shall pay the above amount to complainant along with interest within five days thereafter.- - -".
As such the State Commission ordered the bank to pay the amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh to the complainant but simultaneously also required of the complainant to furnish 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' to the bank.
4. Learned counsel for the bank admits that since the amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh was fraudulently and illegally withdrawn from the complainant's account the bank is dutybound to pay the same. He however further submits that the complainant on his part is also dutybound to furnish 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' to the satisfaction of the bank as per its procedure.
5. In rebuttal learned counsel for the complainant submits that 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' in the format in which they are being asked for by the bank are couched in such language that substantially curtails the right of the complainant to pursue his grievance before a court of law or competent authority. He draws attention to inter alia the following excerpt in the format of 'indemnity bond' being insisted upon by the bank:
"I undertake to withdraw all cases/complaints regarding this amount filed before any Court of Law or any Authority. All such Complaints or cases may be treated as withdrawn. I undertake to file any application or Affidavit in this regard before any Court of Law or any Authority."
Learned counsel submits that the complainant has already filed a complaint with the police and after investigation charge-sheet too has been filed by the police before the competent court. The complainant has also filed the present complaint before the consumer protection forum. The submission is that the complainant cannot be forced to withdraw "all cases / complaints" before any "Court of Law or any Authority" as is inter alia being asked for in the 'indemnity bond' which the bank is insisting upon.
6. After cogitating upon the facts and circumstances of the case as they emerge from the record we note that after appraising the evidence the State Commission has duly determined that an amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh was in fact fraudulently and illegally withdrawn from the complainant's account. The bank too in its internal inquiry had determined the same and had even allowed the complainant's claim to that amount.
The State Commission has allowed the complaint and ordered the bank to pay the amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh which had been fraudulently and illegally withdrawn along with interest as admissible as per RBI rules from the date of withdrawal till actual payment. But it has simultaneously also required the complainant to furnish 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' to the bank.
However, the rub of the dispute was that the complainant did not wish to give an 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' which stripped off his right to file "complaint / case" and to pursue his cause as per the avenues available to him under the law.
Pertinently enough, neither in the police investigation, or in the bank's internal inquiry, nor before the State Commission, or before this Commission in the instant appeal, has there been any insinuation or a doubting cloud which could point to the complainant's complicity in the fraud / illegality which was committed.
When the finding is clear, that in fact the said amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh was fraudulently and illegally withdrawn from the complainant's account, there can hardly be any rational need to compel him to undertake that he will withdraw all complaints / cases before any court of law or any authority and to compel him to undertake to file any application or affidavit in this regard before any court of law or any authority.
Rather than fixing responsibility for the lapses on its part and rather than striving to inculcate systemic improvements to prevent such lapses in future, the bank chose to insist on an indemnity which was tantamount to divesting the complainant of his right to pursue his cause and grievance under the avenues as may be available to him under the law. This more or less amounts to insisting on taking a guarantee to prevent legal action against the bank or its delinquent functionaries responsible before venturing to undo the wrong done to the complainant.
In the facts and context of the present case there was no need of any such 'indemnity bond' or 'letter of satisfaction' when clear findings of fraudulent and illegal withdrawal from the complainant's account had been arrived at by the State Commission after duly appraising the evidence in this regard and there was no insinuation or suspicious cloud of the complainant's complicity therein.
We quite fail to understand the objective of the bank in filing the present appeal when it itself has admitted to its lapse and has itself approved the complainant's claim under its internal mechanism after its own internal inquiry. This appears nothing but undue and uncalled for harassment and a highhanded way of functioning, more in order to shield and save itself and its functionaries concerned from lawful action as the complainant may deem fit to take under the law.
On the one side is the bank, with institutional wherewithal, on the other side is the common ordinary consumer-complainant, without wherewithal. First the consumer-complainant had to suffer the fraudulent and illegal withdrawal from his account. Then, after time-consuming internal inquiry within the bank, his claim was allowed. But the same was not released as 'indemnity bond' and 'letter of satisfaction' were insisted upon which inter alia compelled him to withdraw all his complaints / cases and to file affidavits before courts of law or authorities as per the bank's diktat. The correct approach of the bank ought to have been to fix responsibility on the errant bank staff and to make good the claim to the complainant with courtesy and apology.
It goes without saying that in case in any further investigation or inquiry etc. if the complainant's complicity in the fraudulent and illegal withdrawal comes to light he will be liable for the necessary action as per the law but it does not mean that even in the present facts and circumstances when the things are as they obtain on date he ought to be compelled to furnish an irrational indemnity which curtails and cuts at the root of his lawful right. Much more so when he has proved his case before the State Commission and in appeal also the bank itself is not disputing the fraudulent and illegal withdrawal from his account and is not making any founded insinuation of the complainant's complicity or involvement in the murky transaction.
7. We have no hesitation to direct that in the facts and context of the present case there is no need for any 'indemnity bond' or 'letter of satisfaction' from the complainant. The bank shall dutifully pay the fraudulently and illegally withdrawn amount of Rs. 28.45 lakh with interest as applicable under RBI rules on the strength of the State Commission's findings in this regard. The State Commission's Order stands modified accordingly to this extent.
The bank through its chief executive shall be well advised to fix responsibility for the lapses and harassment as are manifest in this case and to inculcate systemic improvements for future.
The amount if any deposited by the bank with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission's Order dated 25.04.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant towards satisfaction of the award. The residual awarded amount shall be made good by the bank within eight weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.
8. So disposed.
9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER