State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bank Of Baroda, vs Smt. Sukhdev Kaur on 11 October, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 386 of 2010
Date of institution: 12.3.2010
Date of Decision :11.10.2013
1. Bank of Baroda, a body corporate with perpetual succession
constituted under the Banking Companies) Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Registered Office
at Mandvi at Baroda and one of its Branch at Village Talhan,
Tehsil and District Jalandhar Punjab through its Attorney Holder.
2. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Head Office Mandvi, Baroda.
3. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch Civil Lines, Near
Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar City.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Smt. Sukhdev Kaur W/o Sh. Gurnam Singh resident of R/o V & PO Talhan,
Tehsil and District Jalandhar, Punjab.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate
For the respondent : None.
First Appeal against the order dated 18.1.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called "the OPs") have filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 554 dated 24.9.2008 vide which the FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 2 complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to credit the amount of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs, respectively into the joint account of the complainant with the then prevalent permissible rate of interest from May, 2005 till date of payment along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and costs of litigation.
2. The complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') by the complainant-Sukhdev Kaur (hereinafter called "the complainant")on the allegations that she alongwith her husband Gurnam Singh and son Sukhjinder Singh opened their joint Account No. 1281 and she opened her individual account bearing No. 5029 with the Ops. The pass books were issued by the Ops and were being completed in the ordinary course of business. However, it was transpired that in Account No. 5029, there is fraud of Rs. 2,99,000/- committed by the bank officials as she had deposited Rs. 99,000/- on 29.4.2006, Rs. 1 lac on 24.5.2006 and Rs. 1 lac subsequently to that date but that was not deposited in her account. In their joint account she had deposited Rs. 3 lacs on 29.5.2005 and receipt was issued by the bank employees. However, this amount was not deposited in her account. Similarly, the complainant did not withdraw Rs. 1 lac on 25.4.2005 and Rs. 1 lac on 7.10.2005 but the bank officials had wrongly shown in their account that amount had been withdrawn by the complainant. Similarly, the complainant did not withdraw any amount on 7.10.2005 but the same i.e. sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been shown to have been withdrawn. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- has been falsely shown in the FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 3 balance sheet to have been withdrawn on 24.3.2006. The complainant visited opposite party No. 1 bank so many times to make upto date record of deposit and withdrawl but the bank employees had been putting of the matter with one excuse or the other and then they flatly refused to maintain the account. She has the knowledge that some bank employees have not made proper entries and have committed fraud in the bank record. Hence, the complaint with the direction to the opposite party to pay the whole payments to the complainant alongwith interest upto date and damages on account of harassment and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who have filed the written statement stating that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops. However, it has been stated that a joint saving bank account No. 1281 was opened in the name of Gurnam Singh, Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Kaur. A fraud was committed in the Bank Branch and FIR No. 441 dated 29.8.2006 under Sections 406.420/465/467/468 and 471 IPC was lodged and the accused have been convicted to various terms of imprisonment by the Court. The general notice was displayed on the notice board of the Bank inviting the account holders to file their claims supported by documents in respect of the amounts, which has not been correctly reflected in their accounts. The complainant Sukhdev Kaur had submitted a claim of Rs. 2,99,000/- qua saving bank account No. 5029 and the same was supported by relevant documents and consolidated list was sent to Head Office and the claim of the complainant was settled and amount was credited to SB Account No. 5029 on 10.11.2008. However, she FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 4 did not submit any claim by filing any application for her joint SB account No. 1281 and application for payment of Rs. 8,65,021/- has now been filed for the first time on 20.12.2008 and the same has been forwarded to the head office for approval and sanction. The amounts allegedly deposited by the husband Gurmel Singh in the joint account was to be investigated and confirmed by the Head Office. Certain amounts have been shown to have been withdrawn but the complainant denies having withdrawn such an amount. The bank/OP has never refused to pay the claim of the account holder, which was actually supported by documents. The delay, if any, is due to non-submission of the application by the complainant, therefore, she is not entitled to any amount for physical harassment or financial loss.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-A, judgment of Ld. ACJM, Jalandhar Ex. C-1, photocopies of bank deposit amount receipts Ex. C-2 to C-5, photocopy of pass book with A/c statement Ex. C-6, statement of account issued by bank Ex. C-7. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmit Singh, Branch Manager Ex. O-A, application of the complainant Ex. O-1, letter of Ops Ex. O-2, statement Ex. O-3, receipt Ex. O-4, statement Exs. O-5, O-6 & O-7, report of handwriting expert Ex. O-8, specimen signatures Ex. O-9.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 5
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order observed that with regard to Account No. 5029, the amount of Rs. 2,99,000/- stand settled and has been credited in the account of the complainant. With regard to joint account No. 1281 regarding deposit of Rs. 3 lacs on 29.5.2005 vide receipt Ex. C-2 and Rs. 2 lacs on 5.5.2006 vide receipt Ex. C-5, is to be adjudged and a sum of Rs. 2,45,251/- was deposited on 14.11.2005 vide receipt Ex. C-4 but the same has been credited in the joint account. The complainant deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- on 29.5.2005 and amount of Rs. 2 lacs deposited on 5.5.2006 has not been shown in the pass book or statement of account, there is no rebuttal evidence except the statement of the bank official that the receipts are forged and fabricated. The expert evidence is not pertaining to these two documents. With regard to withdrawl of Rs. 1 lac vide cheque Ex. O-3 dated 25.4.2005, Rs. 20,000/- on 7.10.2005 and Rs. 70,000/- on 24.3.2006, there is evidence of the handwriting expert Fateh Chand Sharma, whose report is Ex. O-8 has proved that the disputed signatures on cheques Ex. Q-1 and Q-2 and withdrawl form Ex. O-3 and standard signatures S-1 and S-2 have been written by the same person and withdrawl entries have also been reflected in the statement of accounts and there is no rebuttal evidence of the complainant rebutting the expert evidence examined by the Ops and ultimately, the complaint was partly allowed as stated above. FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 6
7. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
8. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellants that the complainant/respondent never deposited a sum of Rs. 3 lacs on 29.5.2005. In fact she has deposited a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on 16.5.2005, Rs. 60,000/- on 17.5.2005 and Rs. 90,000/- on 30.5.2005 and that she is wrongly claiming to have deposited Rs. 3,00,000/-. The complainant also withdraw various sums i.e. Rs. 20,000/- on 7.10.2005. When she preferred the claim with regard to his personal account No. 5029 a sum of Rs. 2,99,000/-, she did not prefer her claim of Rs. 8,90,000/- (Rs. 8,65,021/-), which is an after thought. The expert was examined, who has given the opinion that on the withdrawl vouchers, the signatures did tally with her specimen signatures. The learned District Forum merely on the basis of entry in the pass book made manually in the account i.e. the scroll of deposit, cash book, day book etc. do not relate to this account, therefore, the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are not on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record and the same are liable to be set-aside and appeal with regard to this point be accepted.
9. With regard to the deposit of Rs. 3 lacs on 29.5.2005 and Rs. 2 lacs on 5.5.2006 apart from the statement of complainant Sukhdev Kaur, the receipts Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-5 has been placed on the record alleged to have been issued by the Bank. There is statement of the complainant that this amount has not been credited FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 7 in his statement of account or in the pass book. It is an admitted case of the Ops that fraud was committed in the bank and criminal case was registered against Rajan Behal and Surinder Singh and FIR No. 441 dated 29.8.2006 was registered at P.S. Sadar, Jalandhar and they both convicted by the Court of Sh. Virinder Aggarwal, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide Ex. C-1. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the complainant had also account No. 5029 and she had preferred the claim of Rs. 2,99,000/- and that claim has also been settled by the bank. It has been further stated that the amount now claimed by the complainant is an after thought. In case we go through the pleadings of the complainant in the complaint, it has been alleged that when she came to know about the fraud committed in the bank, she had been approaching the employees of the opposite parties but they did not supply the statement of account. It has also come in the written statement filed by the Ops that the claim with regard to account No. 1281 has been submitted by the complainant and that was forwarded to the Head Office and it is under consideration. It has not been denied in the written statement that the claim of the complainant is false. Apart from these two amounts, the complainant had also some other amounts but those have been withdrawn by the complainant from the bank. In this regard, there is statement of Gurmit Singh, Branch Manager that a sum of Rs. 1 lac was withdrawn on 25.4.2005, Rs. 1 lac on 7.10.2005 and Rs. 70,000/- on 24.3.2006 and he has also examined one expert Fateh Chand Sharma, who had examined the disputed signatures of Sukhdev Kaur on cheque No. 092024 dated FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 8 25.4.2005, cheque No. 0963375 dated 24.3.2006 and withdrawl voucher dated 7.10.2005 for Rs. 20,000/- and these were compared with the standard signatures of Sukhdev Kaur and it was observed that disputed signatures and standard signatures have been signed by one and the same person. However, the bank has failed to examine any expert that the deposit voucher Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-5 have been compared and have not been issued by their branch, therefore, there is documentary evidence in favour of the complainant whereas there is just oral denial by the opposite party that these have been forged and fabricated without any specific evidence on the record. The earlier claim of Rs. 2,99,000/- with regard to account No. 5029 whereas the present claim pertain to account No. 128. The claim of the complainant cannot be denied merely because of the fact that she had raised the claim of another account earlier and did not prefer the claim with the opposite party with regard to this account. When the Ops have not been able to controvert the same with regard to deposit of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs on 29.5.2005 and 5.5.2006, respectively with them then in our opinion, the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct findings; we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum and the same are affirmed.
10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2010 9
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
13. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
October 11, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member