DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700144
C.C. CASE NO. 12 OF 2016
DATE OF FILING: 04/02/2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 01/06/2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Mita Pal, wife of Krishnapada Pal, Vill+P.O – Sherpur, P.S- Usthi, Dist- South 24 PGS.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1) Samir Das, cashiers Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Sherpur Branch, Vill+P.O – Sherpur, P.S- Usthi, Dist- South 24 Parganas
2) Bank Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Sherpur Branch, Vill+P.O- Sherpur, P.S- Usthi, Dist- South 24 Parganas
3) Chief Manager/Chairman, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, (Head Office), BMC House, NH-34, Chuanpur, P.O- Chaltia, Baharampur, Dist- Murshidabad, Pin- 742101
_____________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that the complainant and her husband maintain a joint savings account, bearing no. – 5506010000544 with the bank of the O.Ps i.e. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The complainant deposited Rs. 70,000/- (1000x70) on 12.07.14 in the said bank. Entry of the amount was also made accordingly in the passbook of the complainant by the bank. Thereafter, the bank showed the deposit as one of Rs. 7,000/- only instead of Rs. 70,000/- and the passbook also stood so rectified by the bank. Alleging defalcation of money by the O.Ps, the complainant lodged an FIR against the O.Ps before the concern P.S. Such defalcation of money, accordingly to the complainant, is deficiency in service in the part of the O.Ps and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case praying for return of Rs. 63,000/- to her account in addition to payment of compensation etc. by the O.Ps.
Hence, the case.
By filing written version of their statement, the O.Ps have been contesting the case. It is contended in W.S by them that the complainant actually deposited Rs. 7,000/- on 12.07.14. The banker’s part of pay-in-slip shows deposit of Rs. 7,000/- in figure and also in words. But, the cashier of the bank made the bonafide mistake and wrote Rs. 70,000/- on the two parts of pay-in-slip and accordingly Rs. 70,000/- was uploaded in computer system. At the end of day’s work, on 12.07.14, there was a discrepancy found in the final assessment of currency notes received and disbursed that day and it was found that Rs. 70,000/- was written in advertently by the cashier on the pay-in-slip. Thereafter, entry made in system was rectified accordingly. It is complainant, as goes the version of the bank, who has made manipulation in the customer’s portion of pay-in-slip for wrongful gain. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant. It is further stated by the O.Ps in their written version of statement that the complainant also lodged an FIR before the police, and the police took up the investigation of the case. But, the investigation has culminated in submission of final report, as the police found no substance in the allegation of the complainant. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the case deserves to the dismissed in limine.
Upon the pleadings of both parties, the following points are formulated for consideration in the case.
POINTS FOR DITERMINATION
- Is there any deficiency in service caused by way of defalcation of money as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to relief / reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence is filed on affidavit by both the parties. Questionnaires, reply and BNA filed by the parties are kept in record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 & 2
Already heard the submissions of Ld Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written version of the O.Ps and also evidence adduced on behalf of the parties including the report of handwriting expert filed herein. Considered all these.
In the instant case, it is the complainant’s grievance that she deposited Rs. 70,000/- with the O.P bank on 12.07.14. The grievance of the O.Ps is that they received Rs. 7,000/- only from the complainant and the banker’s portion of pay –in-slip also shows that the complainant deposited Rs. 7,000/- only, not Rs. 70,000/-. In the midst of such claim and counter claim, the matter was referred to handwriting expert asking him to compare this specimen signature and handwriting of the complainant taken in the Forum with the handwriting of two parts of pay-in-slips and to submit a report before the Forum. Accordingly the handwriting expert has submitted his report expressing his opinion that “the person who wrote the standard writings and signatures marked S-1 and S-2 also wrote the disputed writings marked Q-1 and Q-2”. “S-1” is the specimen signature and writings of Mita Pal, the complainant and “S-2 is the signatures of Mita Pal. “Q-2 is the complainant’s portion of pay-in-slip and “Q-1”is the banker’s portion of pay-in-slip. This report of handwriting expert has not been disputed by any party and by this report it stands fully established that both the part of pay-in-slip lie in the handwriting of the complainant i.e. Mita Pal. The complainant does not also dispute her handwriting on the banker’s portion of pay-in-slip. Now it stands proved that both parts of pay-in-slip are written by the complainant. Some important facts emerge from the proved fact as referred to just above and these are; ____
- Both parts of pay-in-slip are written by complainant Mita Pal.
- In one part i.e. customer’s part of pay-in-slip, she mentioned Rs. 70,000/- in figure and in words.
- In another part i.e. banker’s part of pay-in-slip. She mentions Rs. 7,000/- both in figure and in words.
Why are two different entries made in two parts of pay-in-slip by the complainant? Why in malafide intention of the part of the complainant? The complainant had certainly cherished a malafide intention in her mind and, therefore, she made two kinds of entries in two parts of same pay-in-slip. She had certainly a plan in her mind and to execute that plan she made different types of entries in the same pay-in-slip. The motive of the complainant is clear; her motive was dishonest and that’s why she made such kind of different entries in the same pay-in-slip. A motive of a person reveals best his or her conduct. So, taking into consideration the dishonesty and ill motive of the complainant, we feel not a least hesitation to say that the dark cloud already settled in the mind of the complainant and the entries of different kinds on two portions of same pay-in-slip are made by the complainant in order to execute a plan which she already contemplated in her mind.
Now to see which of the two parts of pay-in-slip is more reliable _____ whether the banker’s portion or the customer’s portion i.e. is the complainant’s portion. Banker’s portion reflects a deposit of Rs. 7,000/- only and complainant’s portion reflects a deposit of Rs. 70,000/- only. The banker’s portion of pay-in-slip cannot be manipulated by the bank and it is not expected to be so by a prudent person. But, the complainant’s portions which remain all along in her custody are easily accessible to manipulation and no one will be able to deny these propositions. Let, see now how far this proposition holds good or not. The originals of two portions of pay-in-slip are produced before us and these have been received back from the office of the handwriting expert. A scrutiny with the customer’s portion of pay-in-slip reveals some important characteristics which will be much more helpful for us to determine the matter in dispute. A minute scrutiny by naked eyes of “seventy thousands only” on the customer’s part of pay-in-slip reveals that “ty” is suffixed to “seven” subsequently. Every person has the peculiar trend and tenor of his/ her writing and such peculiar style of writing is inherent characteristic of that person. We come across one kind of such characteristic in the writing of the complainant. Specimen handwritings of the complainant have been taken and the same is marked as “S-1” by the handwriting expert. There is also the handwriting of the complainant’s in the banker’s portion of pay-in-slip, which is also filed before us. The customer’s portion of pay-in-slip also lies in the handwriting of the complainant. In all these documents, the words “seven thousands only” are written by the complainant herself and on a minute perusal of the writing of those words, it is found that there has been a usual gap left between the words of the writing “seven thousands only”. But, there is no gap left in the said writing on complainant’s portion of pay-in-slip between the two words i.e. “seventy” and “thousands”. The gap between the two words has been vanished only when “ty” is suffixed to the word “seven” in order to give it a shape of “seventy”. So, taking this peculiar aspect of the writing of the complainant into consideration, we do hold that the complainant has indulged in the manipulation of her portion of pay-in-slip and that it is she, who converted “seven thousands only” to “seventy thousands only”.
The bank has also produced the cashier’s scroll book (Annexure-5) and also denomination chart for 12.07.14, marked (Annexure-6) by the O.Ps. It is also stated by the O.Ps that there were only one officer and one clerk present in the bank that day i.e. on 12.07.14. A statement is also filed by the bank with Annexure-5 to show how much amount of rupees was taken from safe by the cashier on that day. From that statement, it is found that the cashier was given Rs. 9, 15,053.50/- from safe on that day. From scroll book (Annexure-5), it is found that the cashier received Rs. 2, 65,100/- in the counter that day from the customers as deposits. So, the total amount of cash was Rs. 11, 80,153.50/- in the hand of cashier that day. It is further noticed on a perusal of cashier’s scroll book (annexure-5) that Rs. 4,16,230/- was paid in cash by the cashier that day to the customers. Upon a calculation, it is found that Rs.7,63,923.50/- will be left at the hand of the cashier at the end of day’s work. The denomination chart (annexure-6) also shows the cash balance as Rs. 7, 63,923.50/- in cashier’s hand at the end of day’s work. Annexure-6 fully tallies with cash in hand as shown in cashier’s scroll book (Annexure-5). The denomination chart shows receipt of Rs. 7,000/- (100x70) in complainant’s account, bearing no. - 5506010000544. According to the complainant she deposited 70 numbers of 1000 rupee notes. It is also so mentioned in her portion of pay-in-slip. But, the denomination chart i.e. Annexure-6 establishes that only 29 numbers of 1000 rupee notes where received in the bank that day. This particular statement of denomination chart goes to falsify the complainant’s version that she deposited 70 numbers of 1000 rupee notes in the bank on 12.07.14. Complainant has no proof whatsoever in support of her grievance. She continues to bank upon the entry of the cashier of Rs. 70,000/- on two parts of pay-in-slip. She does not disclose any source where from she got such a fabulous sums of money Rs. 70,000/- is not a meager amount. Had the complainant been able to prove the source of earning Rs. 70,000/-, her matter could have been considered otherwise. But, there is no such evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the source of her money. Non-ability of the complainant to disclose her source also goes to falsify her case that she deposited Rs. 70,000/- that day. Regard being had to all these facts and circumstances; we do so that a mere entry in a passbook does not go to prove the case of the complainant.
The complainant relies mostly upon an entry of Rs. 70,000/- in her passbook against the date 12.07.14 and also upon an entry of “Rs. 70,000/-” upon both part of pay-in-slip by the cashier of the bank. It is the version of the bank that the said cashier made a bonafide mistake in making such entry and that it was only detected at the ends of day’s work when the final assessment of currency notes received and disbursed was taken. A mere entry either in the passbook or in pay-in-slip does never give rise to any entitlement to any customers. To err is human and there is no human being born so far, who is ever infallible.
That the cashier committed a mistake to mention Rs. 70,000/- on the two parts of pay-in-slip is established by cashier’s scroll book and the denomination chart as discussed above. The complainant as indulged to exploit the bonafide mistake of the cashier and thereby to have enrichment. But, law will not allow anyone to become enrich overnight.
Upon what have been discussed above, it is found that the O.Ps have not committed any deficiency in service by causing rectification of the account in the passbook of the complainant. Causing rectification of a bonafide mistake by a person is not a deficiency in service. There is no merit in the complaint lodged by the complainant. In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only against the O.Ps. Payment of cost will follow the event.
Let a copy of the order be supplied or sent free of cost at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
