State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Smt. Sarita Jain Devi on 31 August, 2015
BEFORE THE MANIPUR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
(STATE COMMISSION)
IMPHAL
MANIPUR
First Appeal No. A/1/2011
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sarita Jain Devi
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ashok Postsangbam PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. Th. Sudhir Singh JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. A.Nibedita Devi MEMBER
For the L. Sando Singh, Advocate
Appellant:
For the
Paoshing, Advocate
Respondent:
Dated : 31 Aug 2015
ORDER
By Mr. Th. Sudhir Singh, Member Heard Mr. L. Sando Singh, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Mr. N. Banikumar Singh, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.
[2] This appeal is filed against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the District Forum, Imphal, in Complaint Case No.11/2010 by which the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony to the respondent, to deposit in the account of the respondent a sum of Rs.500/- which was debited by the appellant from the account of the respondent and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
[3] Brief facts available on record are that the respondent is a customer of the appellant Bank operating A/c No. 01025005286 standing in her firm named, " Mahalaxmi Store ". The respondent came to know of debiting an amount of Rs.500/- from her account when she received a letter from the appellant on 23.12.2009. The respondent immediately inquired about the details by personally meeting the Branch Manager of the appellant Bank. The appellant did not respond to the request of the respondent.
[4] In the Memo of Appeal, the appellant has not raised specific ground for setting aside the impugned order. The submission of Mr. L. Sando Singh, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent is that the RBI appointed Integrated Currency Management Chest (ICMC) to process Currency Notes remitted by the Bank Branches. Cash deposited by the respondent was also remitted to the ICMC along with Deposit Slip where Currency Notes were processed. In that, -1- discrepancy of an amount of Rs.500/- was detected and the same was debited from the account of the respondent and the respondent was informed of the same while debiting the amount.
[5] Mr. N. Banikumar Singh, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent submits that the action of the appellant was not justified. He further submits that only after debiting the amount from her account the appellant informed the respondent that as discrepancy was detected in respect of Rs.500/- currency note, the amount was recovered from her account. He further submits that the cash deposited by the respondent was checked at the counter and they were accepted by the Bank. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant, without informing the respondent, cannot unilaterally conclude that a fake currency note was detected from the cash deposited by the respondent.
[6] The dispute between the parties arose when the appellant, without prior notice, debited an amount of Rs.500/- from the account of the respondent, The appellant strongly defended its action in written version stating that the amount was debited as discrepancy/fake note was detected in the cash deposited by the respondent. The statement of the appellant that a fake note was detected, is a serious imputation made against the respondent. Possession of a fake note or a forged or counterfeit note is an offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for 7 years, and triable by a Court of Sessions. If, at all, the appellant Bank had detected a fake note, appropriate action could have taken against the respondent by making report to the Police for a criminal investigation. It was not done so. Further, there was no evidence to establish that the fake note was detected from the cash deposited by the respondent except the unilateral version of the Bank. Thus, the appellant has failed to substantiate that discrepancy in the form of a fake note was detected from the cash deposited by the respondent.
[7] What is important for the Commission is to look into as to whether the Bank could debit a sum of Rs. 500/- from the account of the respondent without any prior notice leave alone any post-decisional hearing. Bank being a Public Office is bound to observe and maintain the minimum requirement of Natural Justice. Not having done that the Consumer Fora has an obligation to rectify the wrong done to the respondent by the appellant. Therefore, the decision of the District Forum is endorsed and the same is not called for any interference.
[8] As already discussed above, possession and use of counterfeit or fake currency note entail serous penal consequences. Once the unilateral finding of the Bank that the respondent possessed or used fake currency note, comes to be known to any person hostile to the respondent or to any business rivalry such finding may be used for criminal action against the respondent. The minimum requirement of procedure of law is not followed by the appellant-Bank before coming to the conclusion that the respondent had possession of fake currency note followed by deposit in the Bank. It may be noted that the process of checking by ICMC is an internal work of the Bank wherewith the respondent was never associated nor was she ever informed.
[9] For the reasons given above, we do not find any ground for interfering with the judgment of the District Forum. Thus, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
[10] The statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant or to its authorised agent by the Registry, on being identified by a Counsel known to the Commission.
Send back the records of the District Forum along with a copy of this order.
-2-[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ashok Postsangbam] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Th. Sudhir Singh] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. A.Nibedita Devi] MEMBER -3-