State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, ... vs V.Villan,Sivagangai Dist. on 5 October, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present
Date of appeal filed: 29.08.2018
THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.122/2018
THURSDAY, THE 05th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.
The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Singampunari Town,
Thiruppathur Taluk,
Sivagangai District. Appellant/Opposite Party
-Vs-
1. V.Villan, (Died),
S/o Villan,
Meenaksipuram,
Pulithipatti, Singampunari,
Thiruppathur Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
2. Tmt.Selvam,
W/o Villan,
Meenakshipuram Chettidurichi Village,
Singampunari Post and Taluk,
Sivaganga District.
3. V.Alagurani
D/o Villan,
Meenakshipuram Chettidurichi Village,
Singampunari Post and Taluk,
Sivaganga District.
4. V.Annalakshmi,
D/o Villan,
Meenakshipuram Chettidurichi Village,
Singampunari Post and Taluk,
Sivaganga District.
2
5. V.Amsavalli,
D/o Villan,
Meenakshipuram Chettidurichi Village,
Singampunari Post and Taluk,
Sivaganga District.
6. V.Radha,
D/o Villan,
Meenakshipuram Chettidurichi Village,
Singampunari Post and Taluk,
Sivaganga District.
7. V.Radharavi,
S/o Villan,
Meenakshipuram Chettidurichi Village,
Singampunari Post and Taluk,
Sivaganga District. Respondents/Complainants
(Added as Respondents as Legal heir of
1st respondent/complainant as per
C.M.P.No.64/2022, dated 19.04.2022)
(Amended as per C.M.P.No.91/2022
dated 06.07.2022).
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party : Mr.G.Sridharan, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents-1to7/Complainants-1to7 : Mr.S.Senthilraj, Advocate.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Sivagangai made in C.C.No.32/2015, dated 25.07.2018 the opposite
party preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on
11.09.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the
following:
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER(OPEN COURT).
1. The Facts:
Originally the complainant one Villan filed this complaint stating that he is an Account holder of the opposite party/bank. He found that on 13.08.2015 3 Rs.1,10,000/- and on 27.07.2015 Rs.2,50,000/- were withdrawn which was not actually withdrawn by the complainant. So a complaint was lodged with regard to unauthorized withdrawal amounts . The opposite party did not take steps and an Advocate notice was also sent for which also there is no reply from the opposite party/bank. Hence he preferred the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- as well as claiming Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and other expenses and also costs of the proceedings.
2. The opposite party did not appear before the District Commission and they were set ex-parte.
3. Before the District Commission the complainant filed proof affidavit and documents as Exhibits-A1 to Ex.A6. Finally, the District Commission satisfied with the complainant allegations and directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- with reasonable interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay Rs.3000/- as costs to the complainant.
4. Aggrieved with the above order, this appeal has been preferred by the opposite party on the following:
Grounds: That, the award is not maintainable and the award was an ex-parte award. The District Commission failed to see the reason for absence of the opposite party/bank to conduct the proceedings. Moreover, in this case mischief done by the temporary staff is involved and criminal investigation was also pending. 4 Hence they preferred the appeal against the LR's of the above said Villan and requested this Commission to allow the appeal.
5. During the pendency of the appeal both sides filed petitions in C.M.P.No.128/2019 and C.M.P.No.220/2019 to receive additional documents on the side of appellant/opposite party as well as respondents/complainants.
6. The above documents are necessary to decide the appeals as well as they are necessary to ascertain the facts on issues. So both applications were allowed today and the additional documents were marked as Exhibits-A7 & A8 and Exhibits B1 to B3 before this Commission.
7. In this case, both sides filed their written arguments. The respondent side written arguments treated as their oral arguments. Heard the appellant side oral arguments.
8. As stated earlier, it is the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,10,000/- were withdrawn un-authorizedly and it was actually not withdrawn by him. The opposite party/bank by filing additional documents Exhibits- B1 to B3 in which it has been stated that the bank have lodged a complaint with regard to one Pandian @ Nalluchami and the above amount has been issued on the basis of signature found in the withdrawal slip.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the appeal is to be allowed?
10. Discussion on the Point: In this case the complainant also marked certain documents which were marked as Ex.A7 and A8 in which it is proved that the bank Manager has lodged a complaint with police and in the F.I.R., the bank Manager 5 has admitted that one Villan made a complaint that he did not withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,10,000/- and upon enquiry the bank Manager came to know that it has been withdrawn by one Nalluchami, a casual labour of the bank. Further from the Ex.B3 it is proved that one Nalluchami has given confession statement thereby he admitted having withdrawn the above said amount by committing forgery of complainant signatures. So, the complainant 'Prima Facie' proved that he did not withdraw an amount from the bank.
11. On the other hand, un-authorized entries were made regarding withdrawal of Rs.3,60,000/-. The bank Manager also by filing F.I.R. as Ex.A7 admitted this fact and in the F.I.R. the bank Manager further admitted that the above amount was only withdrawn by the casual labour of the bank. At this juncture, the bank is liable to refund the above amount. The bank even after lodging an F.I.R in Ex.A7 dated 21.08.2015 failed to repay the above amount. This complaint before the District Forum was lodged only on 13.11.2015 having come to know that the amount was wrongfully withdrawn by casual labour of the bank. The bank did not take any initiative to correct the above wrong which amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite party/bank even in the appeal failed to explain under what circumstances they can validly refuse to give the above amount.
12. The leaned counsel requested to remand the matter back for retrial. This Commission feels it an un-necessary task as it was clearly proved before this Commission that the amount was not withdrawn by the complainant/Villan but by the employee of the bank. So any commission and omission done by the employee the employer is vicariously liable to compensate the claim. 6
13. Considering the above discussion there is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission and it is confirmed by this Commission. Hence the appeal is dismissed with further cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant and answered the point accordingly.
14. In the result,
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The order passed by the District Commission, Sivagangai, made in C.C.No.32/2015, dated 25.07.2018 is hereby confirmed.
3. The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay further cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondents/complainants in this appeal. Dictated and pronounced in the open court to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 05th day of October 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ANNEXURE Additional of Documents filed before this Commission on the side of the respondent/complainant.
Ex.A7 21.08.2015 F.I.R.Report. Ex.A8 21.08.2015 Confessional statement and seizure statement.
Additional of Documents filed before this Commission on the side of the appellant/opposite party.
Ex.B1 29.10.2015 Reply legal notice and postal acknowledgement. 7 Ex.B2 27.07.2015 Withdrawal slip duly signed by the complainant. Ex.B3 13.08.2015 Withdrawal slip duly signed by the complainant.
Sd/-xxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
8Corrected