Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/21/341

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

BONDAR PATHEKAR - Opp.Party(s)

SH.YASH VIDHYARTHI

21 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2021

(Arising out of order dated 03.08.2021 passed in C.C.No.72/2016 by District Commission, Betul)

 

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH-DAHUA, TEHSIL-MULTAI,

DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)                                                                                              …   APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

BONDAR PATHEKAR,

S/O SHRI SITARAM PATHEKAR,

R/O VILLAGE-MAHILAVADI,

TEHSIL-MULTAI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)                                                                 ...   RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                        :         ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY                 :      MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 21.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                   The opposite party/appellant-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred as ‘bank’) being dissatisfied with the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Betul (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.72/2016, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed, has filed this appeal.

2.                In short, facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that he is having savings bank account no.1390000100055200 with the

-2-

opposite party-bank.  It is submitted by the complainant that on 21.04.2013 he had deposited Rs.20,000/- and on 27.06.2013 he had deposited Rs.20,000/- in his account in cash of which receipts were issued by the bank’s employees Shri Dhurve and Shri Kumbre. It is submitted that entry was not made in the passbook on the ground that the machine was not functioning. When he approached the bank he came to know that an offence under Section 409,420,467 and 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, was registered against the employee of the bank vide crime number 380/2013.

3.                It is alleged by the complainant that when he went to the bank for making entries in his passbook he came to know that these amount have not been deposited in his account. He filed a written complaint on 09.06.2013 to the bank and lodged a complaint with the police station-Multai on 23.08.2013. On complaint being made to the bank, the bank made entry of Rs.20,000/- deposited on 21.04.2013 in the passbook but refused to make entry of Rs.20,000/- deposited on 27.06.2013 on the ground that there is no date mention in the said receipt. The complainant also served legal notice on the bank but no action was taken. The complainant therefore constrained to file a complaint before the District Commission  seeking relief of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs.

-3-

4.                The opposite party/appellant-bank in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant had deposited only Rs.20,000/- and therefore the same was credited in his account. However, the bank has denied deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 27.06.2013. It is further submitted that on 08.06.2013 Police Station Multai registered a criminal offence number 380/2013 against the bank employee Tukudi Dhurve and he was not present in the bank on 27.06.2013 which is confirmed from the Attendance Register of the bank. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank. The complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 27.06.2013 and he wants to take unfair advantage of unpleasant incident took place in the bank. It is also submitted that the complaint is not filed within prescribed time limit. On 05.04.2014 it came in the knowledge of the complainant that the claim with regard to deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 21.04.2013 was accepted by the bank and the claim for deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 27.06.2013 was denied. Therefore, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within a period of two years from 05.04.2014.

5.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party-bank to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 27.06.2013 till payment within a period of 30 days.

 

-4-

Compenstion of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded to be paid within 30 days.

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-bank argued that the District Commission without applying judicial mind passed the order in most arbitrary manner. The findings recorded by the District Commission are erroneous and suffers from material irregularities. He argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the bank is not vicariously liable for the action of the suspended employee. Shri T. Dhurvey, was not working in the branch on 27.06.2013 therefore he was not authorized to issue deposit receipts. He argued that the District Commission failed to consider that the complaint was barred by limitation as cause of action arose on 05.04.2014 when it came in the knowledge of the complainant that the bank denied receipt of Rs.20,000/- and therefore, the complaint should have been filed on or before 04.04.2016. The complaint filed on 08.08.2016 is barred by limitation. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In support of his contentions he has filed judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India (Successor to the Imperial Bank of India) Vs Smt. Shyama AIR 1978 SC 1263.

 

-5-

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the District Commission after considering the deposit slip for deposition of Rs.20,000/- has rightly allowing the complaint directed the opposite party bank to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 27.06.2013 along with compensation and costs. He therefore supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissal of appeal.

9.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find from the record that the complainant has alleged that he had deposited Rs.20,000/- each on 21.04.2013 and 27.06.2013 of which receipts were issued by Shri Dhurve and Shri Kumre the bank employees. However they did not make any entry in the passbook of the complainant on the ground that the machine was not functioning. On claim being made for the said amount of Rs.40,000/- the bank admitting the deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 21.04.2013 credited the said amount in his account on 09.08.2014 which is evident from the bank account statement and copy of passbook produced on record.

10.              However, the bank denied to make payment of Rs.20,000/- alleged to have been deposited on 27.06.2013 as on that date the alleged employees were not present in the bank as a criminal complaint was

 

-6-

pending against them and they were suspended. The main grievance of the complainant is for this amount of Rs.20,000/-.

11.              From the documents available on record, it is evident that on 04.06.2013 the higher authorities of the bank made a complaint to SHO, Police Station Multai (P-13) regarding forgery and cheating committed by their employees Tukudi Dhurve and Mendiram Kumre. From the documents P-11 and P-12 it is evident that Police Station, Multai registered a criminal case 380/2013 under Section 409,420,467 and 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the aforesaid employees on 08.06.2013. It is also evident that the aforesaid employees were suspended by the bank after initiating criminal offence against them. 12.             The complainant has alleged that he had deposited Rs.20,000/- on 27.06.2013 by deposit slip (P-10) which was signed by Dhurve and Kumre and therefore this amount should have been deposited in his account. It is very surprising to note that on 27.06.2013 when the alleged employees were already suspended and not present in the bank how can they issue the said receipt. Even otherwise there is no mention of date on the said receipt which creates doubt.

13.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shyama (supra) has held that where a client of the bank paid certain amount to an employee of the bank for crediting it to her account, the onus was on the client to show that she

-7-

paid the amount to the employee of the bank and was received by that employee in the course of his employment with the bank. In such a case, the false and fraudulent entry about the deposit of the amount in the passbook of the client could not shift the onus on the bank to prove the contrary.

14.              So far as the argument of learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant bank that the complaint is time barred is concerned, from the passbook and the bank account statement filed on record we find that the bank credited Rs.20,000/- in his account on the basis of claim made by him on 09.08.2014 and denied the second deposit of Rs.20,000/- thus the cause of action arose on 09.08.2014. Hence, this complaint filed on 08.08.2016 is well within a period of two years from the date of arisen of cause of action.  

14.              It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no outcome or result of the criminal complaint pending against the faulty employees is on record whereby the bank was held liable. In such circumstances, when the dispute is pending in criminal complaint with regard to incident, how the District Commission can entertain such complaint.

15.              For the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in holding the bank deficient in service and in allowing the complaint. In such circumstances, the

-8-

impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

16.              In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.  No order as to costs.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                Member