State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Hari Shankar Sah on 25 March, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 25.03.2009 Appeal no. FA-08/1127 (Arising from the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by District Forum West in complaint case no.788/2004) Punjab National Bank Pitampura Branch, New Delhi ..Appellant VS Hari Shankar Sah S/o Sh. Sita Ram Sah R/o RZ-483/407, Shiv Puri, West Sagarpur, Gali no. 15 G New Delhi-46. Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore, C-28, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 .Respondents Appeal no. FA-08/1146 (Arising from the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by District Forum West in complaint case no.788/2004) Hari Shankar Sah S/o Sh. Sita Ram Sah R/o RZ-483/407, Shiv Puri, West Sagarpur, Gali no. 15 G New Delhi-46. ..Appellant VS Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Pitampura Branch, New Delhi The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Punjab National Bank 7B, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-66 The Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore, C-28, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 .Respondents CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR(ORAL)
1. The aforesaid two appeals arise from order dated 25.11.2008 passed by District Forum. The respondent Sh. Hari Shankar Sah is aggrieved with the amount of compensation of Rs. 10000/- besides refund of Rs. Rs. 72,000/- towards cheque amount which was encashed by some unauthorized person. Whereas the appellant PNB bank is aggrieved of the order itself passed by D.F. vide which the appellant bank had been held guilty for deficiency in service .
2. The relevant facts as pleaded by the complainant are that his department sanctioned Rs. 72000/- for withdrawal from GPF account for performing his daughters marriage. Since respondent was having Saving Bank Account no. 4973 with State Bank of Indore, he deposited this cheque in his account on 18.5.1999. Thereafter on 22.5.1999, he approached the State Bank of Indore for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 72000/- but was told that the amount has not been credited to his account. After waiting for a few days, he intimated State Bank of Indore and requested them to make enquiries as to why the amount has not been credited to his account. Subsequent thereto State Bank of Indore informed him vide letter dt. 26.05.1999 that as per their records the said cheque is not at all recorded with their bank. In the meantime the Bank wrote a letter to Central Bank of India, Udyog Bhwan, New Delhi which was the issuing bank of the untraced cheque to stop payment thereof to prevent the misuse of the cheque . It was also requested that the name and address of the drawee, if any be also given. Thereafter the State Bank of Indore came to know that the said cheque had already been encashed by Punjab National Bank, Pitampura Branch. The complainant immediately informed asked State Bank of Indore to make enquiries about the disappearance of the cheque and to take necessary action to credit the amount in his SB account. Simultaneously , a police case was also got registered about the incident. During police enquiries , it was learnt that someone with the name of Sh. Harishanker Sah opened an account in PNB , Pitampura, New Delhi where he was introduced by one Ms. Raj Rani, account holder in the bank. However, during police investigation it was found that even the person to whom Ms. Raj Rani introduced was fictitious. The complainant therefore has alleged deficiency in service on the part of PNB.
3. The appellant PNB pleaded that the averments made in the complaint clearly show about the commission of a fraud by an unknown person, investigation about which was pending with the police. They however, claimed that there was no negligence or imperfection on their part and so they cannot be directed to pay the amount to the complainant for the reason that PNB opened the SB Account in the name of Sh. Harishankar Sah in accordance with rule and regulations after getting proper verification of the account opener and also the introducer. The claimed that the account was opened in the ordinary course of business without negligence and in good faith and as such they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs 72000/-. In their written statement State Bank of Indore pleaded that vide its decision dated 11.10.2004 This Commission has dismissed appeal no. 710/2002 filed by the respondent against them and this Commission further observed that the respondent has main grievance against the PNB and as such their name should be deleted from the array .
4. The matter was reported to Police and during the investigation the police found that the account was opened in the name of Sh. Harishankar Sah with PNB by a fictitious person introduced by one Ms. Raj Rani. With his additional affidavit, respondent has filed on record a copy of letter of Joint Commissioner of Police . Head Quarter, New Delhi addressed to Shanta Kumar, Minster of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Govt. of India, New Delhi . In this letter the Jt. Commissioner informed the Minister concerned that during investigation the introducer Ms. Raj Rani a resident of B-348, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi was arrested. , that her subsequent signatures and admitted signatures seized from PNB, Pitampura were sent to GEQD, Hyderabad alongwith questioned signatures for expert opinion, that the result has been received that both the signatures did not match with the questioned one and hence, there was no option except to leave Ms. Raj Rani. The police during investigation as per the contents of this letter of Jt. Commissioner of Police also concluded that the address of the impersonator was also found bogus. Since the material on record clearly makes out that the account with PNB was opened by a bogus person impersonating as Sh. Harishankar Sah whose introducer was also some fictitious person, deficiency in service on the part of PNB is manifest. Deficiency in service on the part of PNB is clearly established on account of the concerned officials having opened the SB account in the name of a fictitious person with a fictitious introducer because of which the cheque of Rs. 72000/- was got encashed and the amount was withdrawn by the impersonator.
5. On behalf of appellant PNB bank, the Ld. Counsel contended that the question of deficiency in service does not arise as the cheque was stolen from State Bank of Indore where it was deposited by the respondent and moreover the respondent did not have any account in the PNB bank and therefore there was no relationship between the appellant and respondent as consumer and service provider. Then it was the State Bank of Indore from where the cheque was stolen and the appellant PNB bank opened the account with the bona fide intention after getting introduced.
6. As against this the Ld. counsel of the respondent has contended that the introducer was not properly introduced as found by the Police during the investigation and therefore connivance of the staff of the appellant PNB bank in opening unauthorized account cannot be ruled out .
The cheque was deposited in the State Bank of Indore with whom the appellant had Saving Bank Account and therefore was a consumer . So far as the conduct of the appellant PNB bank is concerned, it is only of having opened the account of a person on the introduction as the signature of Ms Raj Rani were not genuine and some other person has introduced, somebody has impersonated Raj Rani . In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the negligence is on the part of both the banks State Bank of Indore as well as PNB. So far as the State Bank of Indore is concerned it was deficient in service and negligent in misplacing the cheque which was deposited in their bank and so far as the role on the part of PNB is concerned it opened the account may be without malafide intention without verifying the signatures of introducer and identity. There is report of the police that the address of the impersonator was found to be bogus. Both the banks have to share the liability .
7. As regards dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation, the learned counsel has contended that the respondent was deprived of the interest of bank on Rs. 72,000/- for 10 long years and he has not been adequately compensated for the same . It is a case whether the appellant is involved in deficiency in services or not. There being no malafide, compensation for negligence is adequate.
8. In result both the banks shall share the liability of the amount of cheque and compensation. Accordingly both the banks shall pay Rs. 46000/- each to the respondent as lump sum amount including compensation. The payment shall be made within one month of receipt of this order.
9. FDR / Bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on 25.03.2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member sk