State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bank Of Baroda & Ors. vs Smt. Sukhbir Kaur & Ors. on 25 April, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1850 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 24.12.2009
Date of Decision: 25.04.2013
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
1. Smt. Sukhbir Kaur wife of Gurmit Singh.
2. Gurmit Singh son of Gurmail Singh, through his attorney
Sukhbir Kaur.
3. Gurmail Singh son of Partap Singh.
All residents of Village and Post Office Talhan, Tehsil and
District Jalandhar, Punjab.
.....Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal against the order
dated 25.11.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala
Additional Bench at Jalandhar.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellants : Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate For respondent No.1-2 : Sh. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate For respondent No. 3 : Ex-parte First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 2 of 8 BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 25.11.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala Additional Bench at Jalandhar (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants against the opposite parties was allowed and the opposite parties bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,42,206/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization and Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceeding.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant No.1 was saving bank account holder in opposite party No.1 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, the complainant No.2 had his bank account No.NRE50150 and, passbook issued to him, showed that sum of Rs.2,85,089/- was deposited by him on different dates. The complainant No.3 also had a bank account with the opposite parties having account No.1153 and as per passbook a sum of Rs.1,03,504/- was deposited by the complainant No.3. It was averred that the complainants had been visiting the opposite party No.1 bank but the amount shown in the passbooks was not released. A legal notice dated 30.5.2008 was served on the opposite parties through registered post but it also had no effect. Hence the complaint before the District Forum.
First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 3 of 8
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed written reply and refuted all allegations made in the complaint. It was denied that Sukhbir Kaur had a credit balance of Rs.12,24,696/- in the bank account as the complainant had not given any pay in slips to that effect. Similarly, it was denied that complainant No.2, Sh.Gurmit Singh 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. Similarly, Gurmail Singh, complainant No.3 had a joint account with the opposite party bank but denied that he had credit balance of Rs.1,03,504/-. It was pleaded that a fraud had occurred in the opposite party bank and huge amounts were misappropriated by employees of opposite parties 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 complainant 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 opposite party No.1 had sent the same to Head Office for sanction. Sh. Gurmail Singh also filed claim of Rs.50,000/- only and said amount was credited to his account No.1153.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 4 of 8
5. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the complainants and issued directions as stated above.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have come up in this appeal on the ground that it was born out from the record that in this case there were three complainants. Complainant No.1, Sukhbir Kaur had earlier lodged a claim of Rs.7,68,156/- with the opposite parties, out of which, an amount of Rs.4,25,900/- was supported by counter foils of the pay in slips. This amount of Rs.4,25,900/- was lying credited in the ledger of the bank. Thus, this amount was paid back into the account of the complainant No.1 on 10.11.2008. She had filed a fresh claim petition for Rs.3,42,206/- on 14.12.2008 but it was not supported by any credit voucher or pay in slip and, therefore, the same was not reflected in the ledger. As per the procedure and normal banking practice, the account holder is required to come to the bank premises personally and fill up a cash deposit pay in slip. The counter foil of the pay in slip is returned to the account holder after the receipt of the cash. The Cashier is not authorized to make entries in the passbook at the same time. The Cashier's scroll and the voucher is checked by the Clerk who makes the entry in the ledger regarding all the credits and debits. Entries in the passbook are made and authenticated by an officer and not by the Cashier. The passbook is a true copy of all the entries in the ledger. In fact, the complainant is trying to get the benefit without her claim being genuine. The opposite party bank, after verification of the facts, found that an First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 5 of 8 amount of Rs.4,25,900/- relating to the account of the complainant No.1 had been wrongly withdrawn/appropriated and accordingly, she had been compensated to that extent. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and carefully perused the evidence on record.
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 initialed 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 First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 6 of 8 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 First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 7 of 8 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.
12. The appellants/opposite parties deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be First Appeal No. 1850 of 2009 Page 8 of 8 remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft, after expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
13. Remaining amount shall be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties as per the order of the learned District Forum.
14. The arguments in the case were heard on 1.4.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER April 25, 2013 VINAY