National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of Patiala vs Ram Kishan & Anr. on 1 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2012
(From order dated 26.07.2012 in First Appeal No. 621 of 2007 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
WITH
I.A. No. 1
OF 2012
I.A. No. 2 OF 2012
(Stay
& Delay)
State Bank of Patiala
Through its Manager
Charkhi Dadri,
District Bhiwani (Haryana) Petitioner
Versus
1. Ram Kishan
Son of Sh. Jai Dayal
Resident of House No. 7,
New Canal Colony,
Gurdwara Road,
Charkhi Dadri
2. Smt. Kailasho Devi,
Wife of Ram Kishan
Son of Sh. Jai Dayal,
Resident of House No. 7,
New Canal Colony,
Gurdwara Road,
Charkhi Dadri Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Bharat Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Advocate
Pronounced
on : 1st May,
2013
ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The complainants Mr. Ram Kishan and his wife Smt. Kailasho Devi, residents of Charkhi Dadri, opened various Fixed Deposit Accounts on different dates in the year 1993 onwards. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Charkhi Dadri-OP-4 (in the original complaint) took their signatures on various forms and other papers on the pretext of renewal of the FDRs. He did not issue the FDRs but issued the pass book. They were informed that the rules have since been changed, therefore, pass book was given to them. Thereafter, they approached the Bank to renew the pass book time and again but it did not produce the desired result. Then it transpired that their amount was fraudulently misused by some bank officials by way of converting their bank account into stock invest account. Moreover, when the OPs failed to return the money of the complainants, legal notice was sent to them but it did not ring the bell. Therefore, a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was filed before the District Forum.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.07.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay the maturity value of the FDRs as per details given in Para No. 2 of the complaint alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of each FDR till the date of payment. It also awarded costs in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal vide its order dated 26.07.2012.
4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He made the following submissions. He argued that the complainants had approached the Bank and opened various Fixed Deposit Account for the purpose of Stock Investment. It is explained that due to the downfall in the stock market, the investment of the complainants eroded. It also came to light that there was a scam in the Bank and FIR was lodged with the police against Banks own officers on 20.06.1996.
Banking Ombudsman examined all the material facts and dismissed the complaint made by the complainants vide order dated 21.01.2000. The complainants filed a criminal complaint.
5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complainants had signed the various documents dated 27.07.1994 under the heading Payment of Stock Invests from my account NO. 286 This document was signed by Smt. Kailasho Devi in Hindi language. It is apparent that she could not write Hindi language properly. It was stressed that when the complainants signed the documents with open eyes, therefore, they should not be permitted to jibe their previous stand. We have perused the Photostat copy of the complaint which also bears the signatures of the complainants in Hindi language. It appears that both the complainants are not aware of the English language. The learned counsel for the petitioner further laid emphasis on the fact that this case is barred by time.
It was argued that the FDR was opened in the year 1993 but the instant complaint was filed on 23.11.2000. He argued that the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission are perverse. The complaint should have been filed within 2 years.
6. The last submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that Sh. Ramdhan Goel, Special Assistant, State Bank of Patiala and Sh. Raghuvardayal Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, State Bank of Patiala were convicted in a criminal case under section 408/467/468/471/201 that is for the mis-appropriation of amount and forgery etc. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that these persons were not convicted in respect of the case in hand but they were convicted in the case of other three persons.
7. An attempt was made to louse up the real issue. It is true that in the order of the Magistrate, there is no mention of the complainants. Accounts of Sh. Hem Raj, Smt. Basanti Devi, Sh. Krishan Lal were discussed. However, the judgment states that there were as many as 47 cases. This is an admitted fact the complainants also lodged complaint against the bank officials bearing the same F.I.R. number. The Magistrate was pleased to observe:-
28. No doubt, bank might have suffered losses of Rs. 5.00 lacs, as it was guarantor for the repayment of this stock invest invested by the depositors, because of lack of vigilance, the bank had to pay the penalty, but it is quite clear that accused Ramdhan Goel would use the amount account holder without making any entry of the credtor in their respective accounts and stock invest accounts. Thus, during those relevant period accused Ramdhan Goel would use the public money and he would deposit the said cash amount in the bank on the event of allotment of the share in the bank. The said modus operandi adopted by the accused clearly speaks volume of lack of supervision and vigil of the higher bank official that paved the way for the appointment of Ishwar Singh as a Special Auditor to unfold the entire scam.
Auditor report in this case Ex. PW 6/A is valuable piece of evidence, which clearly shows the complicity to both the accused in defrauding the bank and modus operandi adopted by them to mis-use the public fund.
8. At the foot of para No. 31 it was further observed:-
31. Even otherwise, it is own contention of learned counsel for the accused Raghvar Dayal Aggarwal that in good faith, he would issue stock invest by signing on the some blank stock invest. Further, there is no force in his contention that stock invest used to be issued blank.
This argument of ld. defence counsel is simply devoid of any force because stock invests are to be required to be issued after filing denomination the signature of the Incharge, who was accused Raghvar Dayal Aggarwal and those were required to be signed by the account holders as well.
9. Although, the case of complainants was not discussed in the said judgment, yet, it is clear that accounts of as many as 47 persons were changed from FDR to stock invest accounts without their consent. The District Forum observed:-
We are also convinced with the arguments advanced by the complainant counsel that at the time of applying for allotment of shares in public issue, he would apply to the bank for issuance of a stock invest in his favour for the amount applied for in the public issue. Separate applications were to be made for separate public issue applications. In return the Bank would keep the application money amount intact, out of total amount deposited in the account of applicants saving or FDs accounts if the applicant was successful in getting allotment of certain shares in a public issue of the company the company would send the stock invest attached with the application to the bank for collection of allotment money. In case the applicant was un-successful in getting allotment of shares, this stock invest issued by the bank was to be returned as such to the applicants by the company. In term the applicant would visit the bank and present the stock invest for collection i.e. for remove of the bank lien over the stock invest amount. By applying this scheme the authorities stopped the user of application money by the company as the share application money remained deposited in applicants bank accounts till allotment of share. For whole of this process the applicant was supposed to sign the application for issuance of stock invest as well as the stock invest itself. After allotment of shares the bank was duty bound to clear the stock invest amount in favour of the company making allotment only after comparing the stock investor signatures with the specimen signatures of the applicants but in the present complaint they failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
10. The case of the petitioner hinges upon an application singed by Kailasho Devi in Hindi language. The whole of documents are in English language. Same is the position with the signatures of Ram Kishan. There is no evidence that they were aware of English language.
The other formalities were given the go-bye. The Bank cannot wash its hands of its responsibility. The attitude of Bank adds a shocking dimension to the situation. The commission of scam further shows the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the higher authorities. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the case is time barred. The complainant has continuous cause of action till they get their money back. We see no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same and impose punitive costs of Rs. 50,000/-, which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12 (3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by way of demand draft in favour of P.A.O., Ministry of Consumer Affairs, payable at New Delhi, within 45 days from today, otherwise it will carry interest @9% per annum till its realization. Learned Registrar of this Commission shall see compliance of the order under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
..
(J. M. MALIK,J.) PRES IDING MEMBER .
(DR.S.M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Jr/8