State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Ajab Singh on 7 December, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 69 / 2017
Punjab National Bank
A Body Corporate constituted under
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970
having its Head Office at
7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110607
and amongst others a Branch at
Laksar, District Haridwar through its
Officer Sh. Rakesh Miyan S/o Sh. Gopal Singh Miyan
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
Sh. Ajab Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Singh
R/o Village and P.O. Laksar
District Haridwar
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Shreegopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 07/12/2017
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 31.03.2016 / 31.03.2017 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 317 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the complainant is having Saving Bank Account bearing No. 4132000100152100 with Punjab National Bank, Laksar, District Haridwar. On 13.10.2012, the complainant had deposited sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- in his account, for which he was issued receipt by the 2 cashier / clerk of the bank with his signatures as well as the seal of the bank. After about a week, the complainant visited the bank for getting his passbook updated, whereupon it transpired that sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- has not been deposited in the account of the complainant. The complainant contacted the Branch Manager for deposit of the amount in his account, but no action was taken. The complainant sent a legal notice to the bank, but to no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellant - bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant has not made the cashier, who is a necessary party, as party to the consumer complaint; that on complaint being made, the bank has lodged a criminal case against its employee Sh. Rajendra, who is in jail; that there is no entry in the ledger of the bank regarding deposit of the amount by the complainant; that the complainant has not deposited the amount with the cash counter of the bank; that it appears that the complainant was having some relation with the delinquent officer of the bank and they have made some outside transaction in collusion with each other, for which the bank is not liable and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 31.03.2016 and directed the appellant - bank to pay sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the respondent - complainant together with interest at the rate prevalent on Saving Bank Account from the date of deposit of the amount till payment and the said amount was directed to be credited in the account of the complainant. The above order was passed by the learned President of the District Forum. However, the Male Member 3 of the District Forum vide his even dated order although agreed with the above order passed by the learned President of the District Forum, but also directed the bank to pay further sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent - complainant towards mental agony. It appears that the file was kept pending, since there was no majority decision and after appointment of the Female Member, the file was put up before her, who passed an order dated 31.03.2017, whereby she agreed with the direction passed by the Male Member of the District Forum on 31.03.2016. Aggrieved, the bank has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. We are not going to take into consideration the order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Female Member of the District Forum, as she has not passed a detailed order on merit. Even otherwise, she has passed the order without hearing the bank and she has passed the order only after hearing the complainant and had agreed with the direction passed by the Male Member of the District Forum per his order dated 31.03.2016. Therefore, we are of the view that the order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Female Member of the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the complainant has filed the copy of the receipt regarding deposit of the amount by him with the bank before the District Forum, which bears the signatures of the cashier concerned as well as the seal of the bank. The bank has not denied the said receipt. If the employee of the bank has issued receipt in favour of the customer and has not entered the amount in the account of the customer, the customer has got no concern with the same. The bank has itself stated that they have lodged a criminal case 4 against their delinquent employee for making embezzlement and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him and he has been put behind the bars. If the complainant had not deposited the amount with the cash counter of the bank, then why the bank has lodged the FIR against its employee and has initiated action against its employee for making embezzlement.
8. The bank itself has taken the stand that their employee has made irregularity / embezzlement in certain accounts and an FIR was lodged against the erring official. If an employee of the bank has embezzled the amount of the customer, the bank being the employer, is also vicariously liable for the wrong committed by its employee. Since the bank itself has admitted that their employee has committed embezzlement and hence being the employer of the delinquent officer / employee of the bank, the bank is equally liable and responsible and the bank is liable to pay the amount to the complainant. We are not concerned with the fact as to whether the said deposit slip was forged by the delinquent officer of the bank in collusion with the complainant or not. The fact remains that the deposit slip has been issued to the complainant, but the amount mentioned therein was not credited to his account, thereby putting him to loss.
9. So far as the deposit of the amount by the complainant in his account is concerned, as is stated above, the complainant has filed the deposit slip before the District Forum, which also contains the signatures of the official concerned as well as the seal of the bank. The fact that the bank itself has lodged an FIR against its employee, is sufficient to prove that their employee has embezzled the funds of the customers, in order to have wrongful gain and inspite of receiving the amount from the customer and issuing the deposit slip, did not make the entry of the said amount in their account. It is further pertinent to 5 mention here that there is no cutting / overwriting in the said deposit slip, which rules out any malafide act on the part of the complainant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant - bank cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of N. Shivaji Rao Vs. M/s Daman Motor Company and others; I (1993) CPJ 88 (NC), wherein it was held that the case of fraud cheating can not be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum and the machinery thereunder can not be effectively utilized for determining complicated questions of fraud and cheating. There is no complicated question of fraud and cheating involved in the present case. The matter is quite simple. The bank itself has admitted that their employee has embezzled / misappropriated the funds. Learned counsel cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Shivom Projects Private Limited Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and others; I (2015) CPJ 422 (NC), wherein it was held that the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not deal with cases of bribery and fraud. These entail a lot of evidence and proper investigation. Offence must stand proved in accordance with law. In the present case, no elaborate evidence is required, as the bank itself has lodged an FIR against their employee for making embezzlement and he has been put behind the bars. Learned counsel further cited a decision of this Commission in the case of Indian Phytochem Vs. S.K. Banerjee and others; III (2004) CPJ 227, wherein it was held that the Consumer Forum is not meant to decide about fraud and resultant loss on account of that fraud and that the details of fraud can be investigated upon by detailed and thorough inquiry by Civil Courts. No such detailed inquiry is required in the instant case and everything is quite clear. Learned counsel cited one more decision dated 06.05.2011 of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Consumer Complaint No. 217 of 2006; Bhagwanji D. Patel and 6 another Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Bank and others, wherein it was held that the Consumer Forum may not be the appropriate Forum to decide the complicated questions of fact. No complicated question of fact is involved in the present matter and the misconduct on the part of the employee of the bank is quite apparent on the face of record and the bank is responsible / liable for the wrong committed by their employee.
11. It is also important to mention here that one Sh. Hari Ram Yadav, a customer of the bank, has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar regarding illegal withdrawal / transfer of the amount from his account by Sh. Bhagwan Das Yadav, an employee of the bank and prayed for refund of the amount. The said consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 21.12.2011, against which the bank filed First Appeal No. 15 of 2012; Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Hari Ram Yadav, before this Commission. The said appeal was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 27.05.2015, against which the bank preferred Revision Petition No. 1923 of 2015; Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Hari Ram Yadav before the Hon'ble National Commission. The Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 12.08.2015 dismissed the said revision petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, treating the revision petition as frivolous and vexatious. Thus, the issue stands settled upto the Hon'ble National Commission and the bank was held guilty of deficiency in service by not refunding the amount to the complainant.
12. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. However, we direct that the award amount 7 shall carry interest at the rate prevalent on Saving Bank Account, as was granted by the learned President of the District Forum and the direction passed by the Male Member of the District Forum, further directing the bank to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent - complainant towards mental agony, is hereby set aside.
13. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K