Adv. For the Complainant: - Self
Adv. For O.Ps :- Sri B.K.Mishra
Date of filing of the Case :-12.09.2022
Date of Order :- 02.05.2023
JUDGMENT
Fact of the case in nutshell-
(1) The complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- in his name and Rs.16,000/- in his wife name who is complainant No.2 in this case as special Term deposit for sixty (60) months with the Branch Manager Utkal Grameen Bank Muribahal Branch , District Bolangir who is Op No.1 in this case on dated 16.08.2004 and submitted the two separate voucher which was received by the then cashier Mr.Hara Narayan Pattnaik, who was signed the deposit voucher in token of receipt of money as per practice of
-2-
the Bank. Both these amounts are reflected in serial No.2 and 3. of the cashier receipt and payment register on 16.08.2004. on the same day one Mr Hati also deposited Rs.4,000/- for STDR vide serial No.4 of cashier receipts and payment register.
The amount of all these transaction amounting to rupees 45,000/- is reflected in the General ledger on dt.16.08.2004.This amount of Rs.25,000/- and 16,000/- are also reflected in the daily transaction sheet vide serial No. of entry No. 19 and 20. All these documents are in custody of OP No.1.
The STDR could not be issued to the complainant because the STDR forms were not available with OP No.1 and the complainants were assured to supplied with STDR form shortly , But with passage of time it was lost sight of the complainant, as because the complainant was an employee of UGB he was transfer to the interior places and staying with complainant No.2 who is his wife at those station had got No. opportunity to renewal of the STDR, due to work load and with a believe that it will be done as he was an employee of the same Bank. It is also according to the norms of the Bank STDR are to be automatically renewed for the same period.
The cause of action arised when on dt. 28.06.2021 the complainant applied for the disbursement of the maturity value to the Op No.1 but there was no response the complainant again made a representation before OP No.2 the chairman UGB on whose direction the Regional Manager of the region –iv wrote for clarification to Muribahal Branch vide No. RM-IV/ADMIN ACCT/244 dated 21.08.2021 advise him to send the proper report after verification the record of the Branch such as deposit, voucher account opening form cash roll and other necessary documents on that matter In reply to that said letter the OP No.1 gave a reply vide letter No.135 dated 19.08.2021 confirmly that on 16.08.2004 Rs.25,000/- and Rs.16,000/- were received but the STDR account are not opened and STDR were not issued the amount was parked in the untraceable account and transfer to Bolangir OP No.1 also forwarded the photocopy of the document but surprisingly the GM-III gave a reply to the petitioner vide reference No ACCT/225 dated 01.02.2022 clarifying that the petitioner failed to collect the STDR from OP No.1 and the Branch migrated to CBS platform from manual in the year 2011 for which there is no trace of the amount claimed by the petitioner and asked the petitioner to submit sufficient documentary evidence to establish their claim and pay no heed towards the complainant .the complainant running from pillar to post in this old age substituted to harassment and mental agony hence this case.
(2) To substantiate his case the complainant relies on the following documents.
(1) 1st RTI reply given by OP No.1(Xerox copy)
(2) 2nd RTI reply given by the Appellate authority GM ii UGB Bolangir (Xerox copy)
(3) Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied documents prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice to the OPs were served and in response they appeared through their counsel and filed their written version.
-3-
(4) The rival contention of the OPs admitted the amounts are deposited with them which are in Para No.1 and 2 of the complaint petition denied the non availability of STDR from stating STDR form bearing No.202062 was issued to Mr. Hati for Rs.4,000/-but not mention the date of issue. The main counter allegation of the OPs in their written Statement is being the complainant was the B.M of Muribahal Branch at the time of occurrence it was his duty and responsibility to issue STDR under his seal and signature non issuance of the STDR was only due to the negligence of the complainant in discharging his official duty. Further in Para No.4 averred that the facility norms of the Bank for automatic rollover of the STDR came in to force from the year 2011 and was not in force at the relevant time. In Para No. 6 the OPs stated that the complainant No.1 was the B.M of Muribahal Branch during the period from 15.01.2004 to 17.03.2007he has not reported the non issuance of STDR during his three years of incumbency, in the Muribahal Branch as Branch Manager he cannot be rewarded for his own wrong. The complainant has no cause of action and the case is barred by limitation and is not maintainable in its present form.
No document has been filed from the side of the Ops to strengthen their case.
Heard the complainant and the Ops perused the material on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate for the OPS with arguments.
(5) Before going to adjudicate the case in hand certain issued are framed to meet the ends of the Justice those issue are as follows issues-
(1) whether any cause of action is in the present form or the case is barred by limitation.
(2) whether the complainant deposited the two STDR are true and comes under the purview of consumer
(3) whether the Ops are comes under the vicarious liability.
(4) whether the complainant is exempted from contractual liability.
(5) whether the act of the Ops are reasonable .
(6) whether the act done by the Ops are comes within the purview of deficiency in service.
To meet the issue No.1 the new cause of action arises when the complainant applied for the disbursement of STDR on dt.28.06.2021 and the present case is filed within the time prescribed in the C.P. Act as such it is not barred by limitation.
To meet the issue No.2 it is pertinent to mention here that Para 1 and Para 2 of the complainant petition is admitted by the Ops as such it is presumed that the Ops had received the two separate STDR amounts and the complainants are consumer within the definition of consumer U/7 (ii) of the C.P. Act 2019.
-4-
To meet the issue No.3 we have jumped to have a look on what is vicarious liability. It means the employer is liable for the wrong done or any unlawful action of an employee or any subordinate by which loss occur to other person i.e. liability of the master for tort or wrong act of his servant.
There are three cardinal elements of vicarious liability.
(i) The wrongful act must have been done or committed by an employee or other agent.
(ii) Must have been acting within the scope of his or her employment.
(iii) The employer or other person must have had the ability to control the employee or other agent.
Here the case in hand the complainant No.1 not doing his official work properly and efficiently but what the next successes or (B.M) of that Branch done. Why not the discrepancy short coming should not reflect on the audit report where as every two years gap it is mandatory to have an audit according to the Banking guide line , the first five year i.e (60) month fall on 15/08/2009, why should not the next B.M enquire about the deposit after the transfer of the complainant No.1 on dt 13.07.2007. why not the next B.M follows the guideline that after CBS platform why not the deposit STDR rolled automatically and the interest of the STDR and according to the guideline of Bank in interest of the gap period i.e. from 2009 to 2011 should be paid to customers for automatically renewal . But here no such step has been taken shows the latches of the B.M he should not shift the liability to the shoulder of the previous PO. But re corrects the fault. No document to prove that due to the unlawful action of complainant No. 1 or any disciplinary action or departmental proceeding lodged in favour of the complainant. As such the wrong done by the successor ( B.M) of that Branch the (G.M. U.G.B) is liable for the same definitely the audit report from 13.07.2007 to onwards till date silent in this issue why not the OPs prefer to file the audit report of the disputed branch. Not even a single document has been filed.
To meet the issue No.4 the complainant was the then B.M of Muribahal Branch is undisputed but the person who lives with her ailing wife and small children and with work load might have forget about the STDR and after transfer from that branch to the interior place might have lost sight with the passage of time and also being a house wife the complainant No.2 have no opportunity to think about out of utmost good faith upon the bank with confidence. As such the complainants are exempted from contractual liability.
To meet the issue No.5 the person who open an account with a Bank and have make deposit in utmost good faith having confidence on the banking system that his money should be in safe custody . But when the money which deposited in the Bank is not safe it is a question mark towards the system.
In the present case in reply to the letter dated 21.08.2021 claimed by the R.M from the B.M Muribahal Branch where reply to the above letter vide No.135 dated 19.08.2021 confirming that on 16.08.2004 Rs.25,000/- and Rs.16,000/- where received but the STDR accounts are not opened and STDR were not issued but the GM-iii gave a reply to the complainant vide reference No. ACCT/225 dated
-5-
01.02.2022 that the complainant failed to collect the STDR from the Muribahal Branch and the Branch migrated to CBS platform from manual in the year 2011 for which there is no trace of the amount claimed by the complainant. And asked to submit sufficient documentary evidence to establish the claim where as all the documents are in the custody of OPS is not reasonable it is a foul play having malafide intention to harass the consumer (Complainant) where as the complainants have to received Rs.1,10,800/- out of the deposit of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.70,800/- out of the deposit of Rs.16,000/- @6.75 % from 2004 to 2009 @ 8.75% from 2009 to 14 and @ 10% from 2014 to 19 and @ 6.75 % from 2019 to 2023.
An unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice as may be Judicially determined on facts and reason after fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record would qualify as unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sec 2 Sub Sec (41) and 47 of C.P Act 2019.
Last but the least the complainant No.1 was the employee to suffer but why the complainant No.2 should suffer for the wrong done by the serial employees of that Branch and the employer (G.M. U.G.B) should not be free from the vicarious liability. As such the act done by the OPs are amounts to deficiency in service and bear the loss.
In view of the above facts and findings we found merit in this complainant case we here by concur with the view taken by us and sequel to the above discussion we hereby allow the complaint and as a result with the following direction in favour of the complainants. Hence order.
ORDER
The OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,800/-to the complainant No.1 and Rs.70,800/- to the complainant No.2 @ 9 % interest P.A. from the date of application i.e. 28.06.2021 till the date of order, and Rs.30,000/-towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses paid to complainant No.2 within thirty days from the date of order failing which the entire amount should be paid by the OPs @ 12 % interest P.A. from the date of application till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY i.e DATED 2nd DAY OF MAY’2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
