National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bank Of Baroda, vs Smt. Sukhbir Kaur, on 25 July, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2392 OF 2013 (From the order dated 25.4.2013 in Appeal No.1850 of 2009 of the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh ) 1. Bank of Baroda, A body corporate with perpetual succession Constituted under the Banking Companies) Acquisition and transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its registered office at Mandvi at Baroda and one of its Branch at Village Talhan, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab 2. The General Manager Bank of Baroda Head Office Mandvi, Baroda. 3. The General Manager Bank of Baroda Main Branch Civil Lines, Near Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar City, Punjab. Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Sukhbir Kaur, w/o Sh. Gurmit Singh r/o Village & Post Office Talhan, Tehsil & District Jalandhar Punjab 2. Sh. Gurmit Singh S/o Sh. Gurmail Singh r/o Village & Post Office Telhan, Tehsil & District Jalandhar Punjab. 3. Sh. Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Pratap Singh r/o Village & Post Office Talhan, Tehsil & District Jalandhar Punjab. Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. R.P. Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on : 25th July, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 25.4.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, State Commission).
2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant No.1 was saving bank account holder in petitioners/opposite parties bank having account No.1475. It was averred that as per passbook issued to her, a sum of Rs.12,42,696/- was existing as balance, which was deposited by her on different dates. Similarly, respondent no.2/complainant No.2 had his bank account No.NRE50150 and passbook issued to him, showed that a sum of Rs.2,85,089/- was deposited by him on different dates. Respondent no.3/complainant No.3 also had bank account No.1153 with the petitioners and as per passbook, a sum of Rs.1,03,504/- was deposited by respondent no.3. It was averred that respondents had been visiting petitioners bank, but amount shown in the passbooks was not released. A legal notice dated 30.5.2008 was served through registered post but it also had no effect. Hence the complaint before the District Forum.
3. Upon notice, petitioners filed written reply and refuted all allegations made in the complaint. It was denied that respondent no.1 had a credit balance of Rs.12,24,696/- in the bank account, as respondent no.1 had not given any pay in slips to that effect. Similarly, it was denied that respondent no.2 had deposited a sum of Rs.2,85,089/- as he had not submitted any voucher, counter foil or pay-in-slip to establish his claim. It is admitted that respondent no.3 had a joint account with the petitioner but it denied that he had credit balance of Rs.1,03,504/-. It was also pleaded that a fraud had occurred in the petitioners bank and huge amounts were misappropriated by its employees from various accounts. An FIR No. 441 dated 29.8.2006 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, was registered. Accused in the case were convicted by the trial court. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 had submitted her first claim application for Rs.4,25,000/- only which amount has already been credited to her account on 10.11.2008. She submitted second application on 14.12.2008, which was not supported by any counter foil or proof of deposit and petitioners had sent the same to Head Office for sanction.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and petitioners were directed to pay sum of Rs.3,42,206/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same, vide impugned order.
6. Hence, this revision petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that entries in the pass-book are made on the basis of entries in the bank ledger. As some of the manual entries in the pass-book are not corroborated by the corresponding entries in the bank ledger nor by documentary proof of deposit on cash. Hence, such corroborated entries in the pass-book will be deemed to be illegal and unauthorised. Therefore, respondents cannot derive benefit on the basis of such uncorroborated evidence. Further, possibility of obtaining false entries by respondents in collusion with some unscrupulous bank employees in the pass-book cannot be ruled out.
9. District Forum in its order has held;
9. That regarding account No.1475 which was in the name of the complainant, the opposite party has deposited Rs.4,25,900/- in her account and her complaint is now regarding her claim of Rs.3,42,206/- only the remaining amount had been settled by opposite parties with the complainant. This fact is also admitted by the opposite parties with the complainant. This fact is also admitted by the opposite parties that now the dispute is regarding Rs.3,42,206/- and the rest of the amount have been paid to the complainant. The complainant has placed a copy of her passbook on the file which is Ex.C3. It is a certified copy of her passbook. The complainant has also placed on file vouchers regarding the payment made on different dates and the same are Ex.C5 to Ex.C7.
10. The perusal of passbook Ex.C3 shows that the entries dated 2.1.2006 for the deposit of Rs.95,000/-, dated 3.1.2006 for the deposit of Rs.10,000/-, dated 13.3.2006 regarding deposit of Rs.99,900/-. Again a entry of same dated i.e. 13.3.2006 regarding deposit of Rs.99,900/-, entry dated 11.4.2006 regarding deposit of Rs.60,000/- and entry dated 21.4.2006 regarding deposit of Rs.90,000/- and entry dated 22.4.2006 regarding Rs.20,000/-. These deposits are shown in the passbook of the complaint Ex.C3 and the continuity of these entries and other entries shows that there is no cutting or tampering in the passbook. The perusal of the certified copy of the balance sheet maintained by Bank of Baroda, Village Talhan, shows that entries dated 2.1.2006 and 3.1.2006 regarding deposit of Rs.95,000/- and Rs.10,000/- are missing in the balance sheet. Similarly one entry dated 13.3.2006 regarding Rs.99,900/- is missing in the balance sheet and the entries dated 11.4.2006 for Rs.60,000/-, entry dated 21.4.2009 for Rs.90,000/- and entry dated 22.4.2006 of Rs.20,000/- are also missing in the certified copy of the balance sheet issued by the opposite parties of Baroda, Village Talhan. These certified copies of balance sheets are Ex.C20 and Ex.C21. Ex.C5, Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 are vouchers which show that the complainant Sukhbir Kaur had deposited Rs.20,000/ as per Ex.C5, Rs.90,000/- as per Ex.C6 and Rs.60,000/- and Rs.99,900/- as per Ex.C7. These Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 are counter foils of pay in slips which were returned to the complainants after receipt of the cash deposit from the complainant by the bank authorities.
11. That it is pertinent to mention here that a fraud was committed by the employees of the bank of the opposite parties and a case vide FIR No.441 dated 29.8.2006 under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered in police station Sadar, Jalandhar against Rajan Behl son of Vijay Kumar Behl and Surinder Singh Ruby son of Malkiat Singh. This case was tried and decided by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and vide his judgment dated 29.8.2008 both the accused in this case were working in the bank of the opposite parties i.e. Bank of Baroda, Tahlan. Cash amount of many persons were mis-appropriated by these two employees. Ex. C3 is the certified copy of the cash book of Saving Bank Account No.1475 pertaining to Smit. Sukhbir Kaur wife of Gurmit Singh, resident of village and Post Office Talhan, and all the entries were certified to be true by the officers of the Bank of Baroda opposite party and the entries dated 2.1.2006 regarding the deposit of Rs.90,000/- and two entries dated 13.3.2006 regarding the deposit of Rs.99,900/-. Twice in a day dated 11.4.2006 regarding the deposit of Rs.60,000/- and dated 21.4.2006 Rs.90,000/- and 22.4.2006 regarding Rs.20,000/- are certified by the opposite parties. Ex.C4 is the certified copy of balance sheet. In the balance sheet, the above mentioned entries are missing. The Bank of Baroda opposite parties also issued counter foils of the pay-in-slips Ex.C5, Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. All these documents are the certified copies of the record of the bank. It clearly shows that there is a difference in the entries in the passbook and the entries in the balance sheet maintained in the office of opposite party Bank of Baroda Branch Talhan. These facts clearly shows the officers and officials of the bank were involved in this mis-appropriation of the hard earned money of poor people like complainants.
12. So we are of the view that the opposite party Bank of Baroda, Talhan is fully liable to pay to the complainant, the amount regarding which there is difference in her passbook and her balance sheet maintained by the opposite party and the certified copies of which were issued by the opposite party. In all the difference is regarding six entries fully described above.
13. At the same time, we are of the view that this amount should be recovered from the erring officer/officials of the opposite parties. For their unpardonable behaviour and on this point, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC 243 = 1994 (1) CPC 1 SC has held that :
Today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the burnt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio-economic outlook. It is unfortunate that matter which requires immediate attention linger on and the man sin the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. It is therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department as concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing. It proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
14. Accordingly applying the principle of law as laid down in the authority Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (Supra), we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. On this point we are also supported by the authority reported as Mohd .
Ayub Versus Central Bank of India and Anr. 2006 (2) CPC 220.
15. That in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned some amounts but in her affidavit Ex.CA, she has amended and has claimed the amount of Rs.3,42,206/- only. As per affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, the opposite party had settled the remaining dispute with her. So we are of the view that the opposite parties are fully liable for the amount which had been misappropriated by the officer/officials of the bank and we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,42,206/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
10. The State Commission while affirming the order of District Forum, in its impugned order observed ;
8. Smt. Sukhbir Kaur in her affidavit (Ex. C-A) has deposed that the matter of Gurmit Singh s/o Gurmail Singh, having account No.NRE50150 and his joint account No.1153 with Gurmail Singh s/o Partap Singh had been amicably settled by the opposite parties and their disputed amount have been credited in their respective bank accounts. So the complainants did not want to pursue the complaint in respect of these two account numbers. As regards to account No.1475, existing in the name of the complainant No.1, the opposite parties had already deposited Rs.4,25,900/- in her account and her complaint is now regarding the remaining claim of Rs.3,42,206/-.
9. The complainant has placed on record the copy of her passbook as Ex. C-3. A perusal thereof shows that she had deposited various amounts on different dates and the closing balance as on 23.6.2006 has been reflected as Rs.12,24,696/-. The entries in the passbook are duly initiated by the official of the opposite parties and the same also bears a rubber stamp of the opposite party bank. The opposite parties have contended that all the deposit entries are not reflected in the statement of account maintained in the bank. No counter-foil of the pay-in-slip, in token of having deposited the same with the bank, has been placed on record by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted in their written statement that a fraud had occurred in the bank and huge amount was misappropriated from various accounts. The opposite parties had lodged an FIR No. 441 dated 29.8.2006 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and the accused in the case have been sentenced by the court to various terms of imprisonment. A notice was displayed in the bank to the general public to lodge their claims supported by documents for any amounts misappropriated from their respective accounts. The amounts claimed by the complainant and supported by the documents have been paid to her.
10. A copy of the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 29.8.2006 is proved on record as Ex.C-1. From this order, it is evident that the opposite parties filed an FIR against Sh.Rajan Behal and Sh.Surinder Singh for having committing fraud by way of misappropriating of funds from the accounts of the various account holders. Both the officials were convicted by the trial court. The complainant, in her representation dated 14.8.2006 (Ex.C-2) had said that the amount deposited by her was also deposited with Sh.Rajan Behal. The copy of her passbook (Ex. C-3), which is duly initialed by the official of the opposite parties, also bear the seal of the opposite parties bank. It clearly shows a credit balance of Rs.12,24,696/-. Even though as per the procedure laid down by the bank, the customers are required to fill in the pay-in-slip at the time of cash deposit and the counter foil of this pay in slip is returned to the customers in token of having received the cash, but it is not obligatory on the part of the customers to retain the counter foil, so issued, for all the times to come. Once the entries regarding the cash deposited on a particular date is duly entered and authenticated by the official of the bank, there is absolutely no need to retain these counter foils. The passbook, duly issued by the opposite parties at the time of opening of the account on 27.4.2004, is an authenticate and reliable document in support of amount deposited and the existing balance against a particular account number. Absence of counter foil of the pay in slip does not render the entries made in the passbook invalid. Since the opposite parties have admitted that Sh.Rajan Behal and Sh.Surinder Singh have been convicted by the court for having played fraud with the bank as well as with the customers, the opposite party is duty bound to compensate its account holders of the amount which is reflected in the passbook. The opposite parties are responsible for the acts of their employees. The complainant cannot be made to suffer for the misdeeds of some unscrupulous employees of the opposite party bank, who managed to defraud the customers as well as the bank.
11. In view of the above discussion and findings, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The impugned order of the learned District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
11. As per written statement of the petitioners filed before the District Forum, petitioners have admitted in unequivocal terms that a fraud has occurred in their bank and huge amount was misappropriated from various accounts. Accordingly, petitioners bank has lodged an FIR on 29.08.2006. It is also petitioners own case that accused in the criminal cases have been sentenced by the court to various terms of imprisonment. Further, as per petitioners defence it has displayed a notice in the bank to general public to lodge their claims supported by documents for any amount misappropriated from their respective accounts. Thus, respondent no.1 lodged a claim with the petitioners bank. Since, as per petitioners own case, its own employees are at fault, hence, for the illegal acts committed by the petitioners employee, respondents no.1 cannot be made to suffer.
12. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act). It is well settled that powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
13. Hon'bleble Supreme Court, in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. 2011 (3) Scale 654 observed that;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.
14. Since, both fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor the same suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, present petition is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and same is totally meritless and have no legal basis. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only.
15. Petitioners are directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case cost is not deposited within the prescribed period, then petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
16. List for compliance on 06.09.2013.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER Sg/SSB