STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 122 of 2016
State Bank of India, Pakri Branch, Chowk Pakri, District- Bhojpur, Ara through the Branch Manager
.… Appellant/ Opposite Party)
Versus
Arun Kumar, S/o- Surya Nath Dubey, C/o- Sri Surendra Pandey Advocate, Idgah Road, Maula Bagh, Post- Ara, PS- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur.
…. Respondent/Complainant
For the appellant: Adv. Anjani Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent: Adv. Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Before,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Dated 23.03.2023
As per Sanjay Kumar, President.
O r d e r
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of SBI of Inidia Pakri Branch, Bhojpur at Ara through its Branch Manager, for setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.02.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case no. 55 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has allowed the Complaint Case and directed appellant-bank to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from 18.12.2010, Rs. 25,000/- from 27.12.2010, Rs. 8,000/- from 06.01.2011 and Rs. 75,000/- from 13.02.2011 with interest @10% per annum and further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the date of order failing which interest @12% per annum shall become payable.
Briefly stated that facts of the case is that complainant had a saving bank account in State Bank of India, Pakri Branch, Ara and his account no. is 30042826626. He was provided ATM card and cheque book facility for withdrawal of money from his account. On 15.02.2011 complainant went to his SBI branch for withdrawal of money through ATM when he found huge amount has been withdrawn from his account, although he had not withdrawn said amount.
Complainant made a complaint to the Branch Manager in which it was stated that sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from his account on four occasion. He further complained that once he has been provided ATM card and cheque book facility then how such a huge amount can be permitted to be withdrawn through withdrawal form.
Branch Manager produced the withdrawal form before the complainant from which he found that one Sanjay Kumar alias Neeraj Sinha has fraudulently withdrew the money from his account in connivance with bank employees. On 16.02.2011 he gave a written complaint to Regional Manager, SBI for taking legal action against the bank employees and also to refund his amount but no action was taken by the bank then he lodged an FIR giving rise to Nawada PS case no. 86 of 2011 dated 26.02.2011 under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC in Bhojpur (Ara) District.
Complainant filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Ara for refund of the amount with interest which was fraudulently withdrawn from his account in connivance with bank employees as same amounted to gross deficiency in service by service provider along with grant of compensation and cost of litigation.
Opposite party appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that complainant himself withdrew the amount after filling withdrawal form and has instituted a false Criminal case against the bank employees and the bank.
In support of his claim case complainant filed his affidavit and was cross examined. As documentary evidence complainant produced saving bank account in the name of Arun Kumar (Exhibit-A) petition dated 16.02.2011 filed before the Branch Manager, SBI (Exhibit-A-1), petition to Regional Manager (Exhibit-A-2) withdrawal form 13.02.2011 of Rs. 75,000/- (Exhibit-A-3), Copy of Fir (Exhibit-A-), copy of supervision notes of Dy.SP (Exhibit-A-5) protest petition (Exibit-A-6), report of CID (Exhibit-A-7), expert opinion (Exhibit-A-7/1) which were marked as Exhibits by the District Consumer Forum.
Opposite party did not produce either oral or documentary evidence before the Ld. Forum.
On consideration of the material placed before the District Forum, it was held by the District Forum that I.O in course of investigation sent the disputed signature on the withdrawal form and admitted signature of the complainant for expert opinion and same was examined by the state examiner police laboratory CID, Bihar, Patna and according to expert opinion disputed signature and admitted signature are not of same person. The expert opinion clearly showed that the signature on the withdrawal form does not match with the admitted signature of the complainant.
The District Forum further held that employees of bank were negligent in their duty while passing the withdrawal form for payment of money contrary to the banking norms which amounts to deficiency in service and as such directed the bank to refund the amount with interest and also granted compensation for physical and mental harassment as well as cost of litigation to the complainant.
The Ld. District Forum has further observed that when account holder has availed cheque book and ATM facility for withdrawal of money then he can not withdraw the money from his account by withdrawal form. In unavoidable circumstances, if he wants to withdraw the money by withdrawal form, then he has to take permission from the Branch Manager, in absence of which money can not be withdrawn. As such present case indicates connivance of bank employees in fraudulent withdrawal of the money which reflects gross deficiency in service of the bank.
The District Consumer Forum has rejected the argument by the State Bank of India that pendency of Criminal case is no bar for the consumer Commission to entertain cases with respect to deficiency in service and as such the Consumer Complainant case was maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum SBI has preferred this appeal.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the matter relates to fraudulent withdrawal of money against which FIR has been instituted as such complainant should pursue the criminal case and allegations against bank is baseless. It is further submitted that Ld. Commission has failed to examine the main culprit namely Sanjay Kumar whose involvement has been found by the I.O which shows complainants connivance with Sanjay Kumar in withdrawal of the money. The bank after full satisfaction has allowed the complainant to withdraw the money. .
Having heard counsel for the parties, this Commission finds that fraudulent withdrawal of money being a criminal matter for which FIR has already been lodged does not preclude the complainant from approaching the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service by the service provider. In present case there is gross negligence shown by the bank employees when against the banking norms amount has been permitted to be withdrawn on withdrawal form. Signature on withdrawal form was compared by the admitted signature of complainant and there is expert opinion that both signature does not tally, which does not only suggest reckless and negligent act in performance of duty but also indicates employees to be part of conspiracy in fraudulent withdrawal of money.
Bank employees have shown lack of care and caution and devotion towards their duty while passing the withdrawal form for making payment without passbook and without identifying the borrower as only account holder can withdraw money from withdrawal form from his account which reflects gross deficiency in service by the service provider.
This Commission does not find any error or infirmity in the order under appeal and as such is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhojpur at Ara and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
