1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against order dated 28.08.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 281 of 2015. In this, the Appeal by the Respondents/ OPs was allowed, thereby setting aside the Order dated 28.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Araria (“District Forum”) in CC No. 85 of 2013, wherein the Complainant’s complaint was allowed.

2.      As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 137 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. The said delay was condoned vide order dated 28.03.2019 passed by this Commission subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account by the Petitioner. However, the same has not been deposited by the Petitioner as yet but he has moved an Application being IA/17148/2019 seeking waiver of the said cost. 

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per the Complaint before the District Forum. Munna Prashad Soni is the Complainant (Petitioner herein). SBI and Its Managers are referred as OPs No.1, 2 & 4 (Respondents No.1, 2 & 4) and Deepesh Sinha  is referred as OP-3 ( Respondent No. 3 herein).

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he took an SBI Life Smart ULIP Policy No. 33024699508 on 12.12.2009 from State Bank of India, Jogbani Branch, with an annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. Premium payments were made regularly until issues arose in 2012. On 04.01.2012, he deposited Rs.50,000/- towards the policy premium with respondent no. 3 (identified as Shri Dipesh Sinha), receiving a counter slip as proof of payment. Despite this, there were discrepancies noted by the bank regarding the premium payment status. Allegations were made that the bank officials, particularly respondents no. 2 and 3, failed to properly handle the premium deposit, leading to lapsing of the policy. The complainant engaged with bank officials, filed complaints, and sought resolution multiple times. Legal notices and complaints were filed, but the issue persisted. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint claiming mental agony, physical harassment, loss of work, and other damages due to the non-payment.

5.      In their reply before the District Forum, Respondents No. 1, 2, and 4 (SBI Bank and its officials) contended the absence of liability for any deficiencies. They contended that the primary issue lies with Respondent no. 3 (Shri Dipesh Sinha), who allegedly mishandled the premium deposit amount. A case of cheating against Respondent No. 3 is already registered and pending in court. Respondents contended that they did not commit any deficiency in service and that the dispute primarily involves Respondent No. 3. They maintained that they are not vicariously liable for the actions of Respondent No. 3 and sought dismissal of the complaint.

6.      Respondent No.3 did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte.

7.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 28.08.2015, allowed the complaint and directed as under:

          “We are the opinion that SBI is liable to Pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousands) deposited by the applicant on dt. 4-1-12 and the other premium deposited by the applicant. So the bank is liable to pay is as below:

1. The amount Rs.50,000/-(Fifty thousands rupees) deposited by the applicant on dt. 4-1-12.

2.       The loss of policy Rs.One Lakh.

3.       Mental harassment and case expenditure Rs.25,000/-.

          The total amount Rs.1,75,000/- (One Lakh Seventy five thousand rupees only).

          It is further directed that the banking authority has full right to make inquiry against the person, who is in fault and take the said amount from their salary are their deposit. But the banking authority is also liable to pay total amount Rs.1,75,000/- (One Lakh seventy five thousand rupees) as calculated above within one month of this order after receiving. If the said amount had not to paid by the SBI then is liable to pay 10% (Ten percentage) interest on the said amount till the payment to the applicant from this order.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the opposite party SBI, Jogbani Branch for taking necessary action for compliance of this order.” (Extracted from translated copy)

8.      Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, the Respondent-SBI Bank filed FA No. 281 of 2015 and the State Commission vide order dated 28.08.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the District Forum order dated 28.08.2015 with the following observations:-

  “We have considered the case of the parties, material on record as also the impugned order. The issue is with respect to the deposit made by the complainant on 04.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards premium the amount of the SBI Life Insurance in question. The complainant supports the deposits on the basis of the counter foil of the pay-in-slip issue by the cashier (opposite party no. 3) bearing his signature and the seal of the bank. Bank denied the deposits on the basis of the such counter foil of pay-in-slip in absence of any credit entry in the ledger of the bank as also that for credit of the premium to the life policy in question the deposits are required to be made as per the prescribed challan of the brought on record as annexure 3 to the memo of appeal. Admittedly the said deposit is not as per prescribed challan. Appellant submits that the alleged payment of opposite party no.3 against whom for having committed various frauds F.I.R lodged with police is under investigation. The said acceptance of the deposit made by the complainant cannot be the receipt by the bank since the alleged receipt by opposite party no.3 is not in course of banking business and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court vide judgment dated 05.05.1978 in civil appeal no. 2476 of 1968. On behalf of the respondent no.1 it is submitted that since opposite party no.3 the cashier of the bank issued receipt with the seal of the bank as such bound to accepts its liability.

  In case the very deposit of the money is disputed on the ground that the pay in slip is that genuine as it did not mention the scroll number and not issued of banking business as such deposit slip need to be tested on the touch stone of the Evidence Act in normal bust. The claim of complainant becomes money a claim to be determined in the normal court, upon determining as to whether the deposit as claimed by the complainant and the fraud committed by the cashier was in course of the banking business or not so as to fix the liability.

          For the reasons and discussions above, we are unable to sustain the order. It is thus set aside.

          In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The amount deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be released in its favour. It is made clear that our observations and considerations in this appeal are confined only to consider the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act a summary in nature.”

9.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No. 1127 of 2018.

10.    In his arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and facts of the complaint and asserted that he deposited Rs.50,000/- with Cashier/ Respondent No.3 (Dipesh Sinha) who also issued counter slip of deposit, and the petitioner also saw the dealing of other customers who were receiving the counter slip their deposits at the branch, then it cannot be assumed that he made the payment to Respondent No.3 somewhere else and not in the course of banking business at the said branch counter. He argued in favour of the order passed by the District Forum and sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the State Commission Order.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

a. Pradeep Kumar Another Vs. Post Master General and Ors, Civil Appeal Nos.8775-8776 of 2016, decided on 07.02.2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

b. Allahabad Bank vs. Shiv Swarup Shrivastav, I (2007) CPJ 221 NC;

c. Punjab National Bank Vs. Hari Ram Yadav, Revision Petition, decided on 12.08.2015 by NCDRC.

11.    The learned Counsel for the Respondents/OPs argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He asserted that the alleged deposit was not made as per the prescribed Challan Form and there was the allegation of fraud against the Respondent No.3 for which various cases were registered against the Respondent No.3 in his personal capacity, the allegation is to be looked by the normal court and not by the consumer courts.  He further argued that the petitioner did not file any civil case against the Respondent No.3 as the Respondent No.3 allegedly took money from the Petitioner on the premises known to the Petitioner herein and the Respondent No.3 and the fraudulent acts of the Respondent No.3 is out of course of the banking business, the Respondent No.1, 2 and 4 are not supposed to be liable.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs. 

12.    The Respondent No.3 did not appear before this Commission despite service and therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.2024.

13.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both parties. 

14.    The matter essentially pertains to dispute with respect to payment of insurance premium wherein the Complainant had asserted to have paid this money in the Bank Counter to the staff of OP Bank on 04.01.2012. In furtherance of his claim, he produced the counter foil of receipt which contained signature of the staff and the stamp of the OP Bank. As a consequence of this amount not being remitted to his insurance account, his policy had lapsed. While there is no claim that had emerged with the insurer, the amount of Rs.50,000 he paid was left unaccounted for. It is the claim of complainant that Rs.50,000 being premium of his policy was paid by him in the OP Bank and it was not credited to the insurance account and the same shall be refunded to him with damages and costs.

15.    Per contra, it is the stand of the OP Bank that the receipt which is being shown by the Complainant is not the receipt that is due to be filled for insurance payments. The same is, therefore, unacceptable. It was also contended that bank staff in question is under prosecution against certain charges due to the Bank filing criminal complaints for certain act of misconduct in the course of duty. At the same time, it is undisputed position that the Complainant had produced a bank receipt which is duly stamped and signed. The only reservation of the Bank is that the said receipt is meant for different purpose and not applicable for insurance premium payments. Even under such circumstances, undisputedly what the Complainant paid is insurance premium of his own policy. This amount is alleged to have been misappropriated by OP-3, a staff of the OP banks who is also admitted to be involved in funds misappropriation and the OP Bank had initiated departmental proceedings also against him. It deserves consideration that, normally, an individual policy holder would not let his policy lapse, except for a good reason. The is because the impact of such failure and lapse of the policy is obvious. This is not a case of a dispute with respect to a cash deposit by the Complainant, which he sought to withdraw. It is also not a case of insurance claim by the Complainant against the OP Bank due to lapse of the policy, as a sequel to non-payment of insurance premium to the insurer. Further, what has been claimed by the complainant and awarded by the learned District Forum is limited to insurance premium of Rs. 50,000/- which was stated to have been deposited by the complainant on 04.01.2012 and compensation.

16.    The complaint has established that he had paid ₹50,000 in the OP Bank on 04.01.2012 and obtained a counter foil signed and stamped by OP-3 during the course of banking hours. He had produced receipt. The same is undisputed, except for the type of challan to be filled towards insurance premium being different. It is also admitted position that the Bank had initiated certain penal as well as disciplinary proceedings against OP-3 for such financial misappropriations. Therefore, the stand of OP bank of absence of liability towards actions of OP-3 in the course of duty is untenable. Undoubtedly, the OP Bank is a major bank trusted by millions of accounts holders in the country and abroad. The OP Bank has vicarious liability with respect to the actions of the staff in the course of business when the customers transact with utmost faith and bonafide belief that the bank staff perform the duties as per law.

17.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, I find merit in the order of the learned District Forum dated 28.08.2015. Therefore, the instant Revision Petition 1127 of 2018 is allowed, the order of learned state commission dated 28.08.2017 is set aside and the order of learned District Forum dated 28.08.2015 is upheld.

18.    The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to comply with the order of the learned District Forum dated 28.08.2015 within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, simple interest @ 12% per annum shall be applicable for such extended period.

19.    There shall be no orders as to costs.  All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

20.    The Registry is directed to release the Statutory deposit amount, if any due, in favor of the Appellant after the compliance of the order of the learned District Forum.