Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member:-
Brief facts:-
The Secretary, Khuntpali Weavers Co-operative Society Limited,(K.W.C.S. Ltd), At/Po. Khuntpali, Dist. Bargarh is operating a Bank account vide No. 30509818903 at the State Bank of India, Bargarh Branch to suite to its needs and requirements on Dt.03/04/2009 while the Secretary, K.W.C.S. Ltd was sent to the Bank for updating the pass book came to know that an withdrawal has been made on Dt.10/02/2009 from the account with some forged signatures. He complained the same immediately to the Branch Manager and asked for action. But months passed and the money could not be recovered neither any satisfactory result was obtained, in the mean time the society is facing huge funds scarcity in absence of this illegal with drawal and after running for months to the Bank for satisfaction of his grievance and when no step has been taken to return the money to society account after the discussion in the Board Meeting of the society this case is filed to recover the money of poor weavers of the area.
Hearing was completed on Dt.15/01/2013 where in the counsels of both the parties submitted their respective cases and also submitted on the documents and case laws they relied upon to prove their case.
Heard at all length to the submissions of the advocates of both the Parties. Perused the documents attached to the case record and the following points mere revealed.
(1) A weavers Co-operative Society was framed and that is functioning at Khuntpali village, Bargarh.
(2) That the Secretary, Gajendra Meher got to know about an illegal withdrawal of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only from their Bank account No. 30509818903 on Dt.10/02/2009 with forged signatures of Vice-President and Secretary. This was known to him when he want to update the pass book on Dt.03/04/2009.
(3) The Secretary, K.W.C.S. Ltd immediately dragged attention of the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bargarh on the same date vide Dt.03/04/2009 in writing. This can be ascertained from the case record as two letters by Gajendra Meher attached to the case record reporting the incident to the Bank Manager.
(4) According to Secretary no with drawal can be done without a release order obtained from the Assistance Director of Textiles to withdraw any money either case or even through cheque. To prove his contention he dragged attention of the Forum to one document filed being a letter from the ADT, Bargarh No.2512 Dt.27/08/2008 to B.M., State Bank India, Bargarh about opening of the savings bank account, where in it was clearly instructed that under no circumstances withdrawal to be allowed with out production of a release order and even no ATM card to issued to any one for the said account.
(5) The allegation of the Complainant is that the signatures produceed in the withdrawal slip are forged ones and to do forge the pass book is not produced at the time of withdrawal for some petty reason, again the Complainant said that this was because the pass book was with the Complainant and the people doing the withdrawal were not having the same. So took help of the pleas as said in the undated letter to Branch Manager, SBI, Bargarh by some Murali Prasad Bhoi, from Ekamra WCS, Bargarh about the incident and the incident, and the letter shows that this person helped the Secretary to withdraw money even without presenting the passbook with the help of one Gadtia Babu of the Bank who approached the withdrawal. Here point to be noted is Ist the withdrawal is allowed with out presentation of the pass book and second with out a release order required for making withdrawal from the account. The fact of necessity of release order is there in the Ist page of the pass book as well as the ledger book. So even if the pass book was not presented to avoid the production of release order, the Bank Official while verifying ledger could have easily found the necessity of a release order for withdrawal of money from the amount and how it has been by passed is astonishing for this Forum by a leading reputed Bank with top rated consumer confidence level.
(6) So, what-so-ever the reason by passing some necessary mandatory step is highly negligent act from the side of Bank which is the guardian of public money and got high prestige and confidence from the general public.
(7) The Complainant has filed a number of documents to prove his cause vide:-
(A) Xerox copy of the Pass Book No. 30509818903.
(B) Xerox copy of the page of Saving Bank Account to show the withdrawal of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only on Dt.10/02/2009.
(C ) Letter to Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bargarh, reporting the incident of forgery Dt.04/04/2009.
(D) A Regd. Slip-sharing despatch of letter to AGM (Admin), Sambalpur, approaching him about the incident.
(E) Letter to AGM (Admin), Sambalpur, Dt.13/04/2009.
(F) Letter to AGM (Bolangir) dated 17/08/2009 apposing him about the incident of fraud.
(G) Letter of ADT, Bargarh dated 27/08/2008 No.2512 to Chief Manager, Sambalpur, Bargarh for opening of Saving Bank Account in the name of the Complainant including the mandatory rules while opening the Account.
(H) Another letter from ADT, Bargarh to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, to take into the mater quickly.
(I) Resolution copy of K.W.C.S. Ltd to file complaint against the Bank DCDRF, Bargarh Dt.27/11/2009.
(J) Copy of the FIR Dt.22/08/2009 where in the name of the Complainant is Gajender Meher.
Here point to be noted is when the matter was known to the Complainant on Dt.03/04/2009 why the filing of FIR was only on Dt.22/08/2009 after four months.
(K) Letter dated 18/08/2009 to the Inspector-in-Charge, Town Thana to solve the matter and to recover the money and explaining the involvement of one Gadtia Babu who is accountant of the Bank in the fraud withdrawal of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand)only from the Saving Bank Account of Complainant.
(L) Copy of the Bye-laws of the K.W.C.S. Ltd.
The necessity of this piece of document was to find out whether the Secretary is eligible to file complaint/case against any one behalf of the Society Rule 28 (3) of the Bye-laws answers affirmatively to this question as well as the resolution copy dated 27/11/2009 also further confirm the eligibility of the Secretary to file a case.
(8) The Opposite Party filed its version on dated 20/10/2011 where in submitted his contentions about the Complaint. The version raises a few issues, like the Complainant is not a consumer and case is not maintainable, non-joinder of necessary parties but did not mentioned which one through out the hearing process, Bank is not liable for the fraud done by some unknown person and hence no deficiency is committed. The criminal complaint is under process and this Forum should not continue the proceeding hence as this may cause revealing of vital facts prejudicing the position of the Opposite Party in the criminal proceeding.
Opposite Party filed a few documents on which he relies to prove this causes.
(A)Letter to the IIC, Town Thana, Bargarh, requesting to receive the FIR.
(B)Letter to the State Bank of India, Bargarh about not acceptance of the FIR for the incident on Dt.10/02/2009 about fraud withdrawal dated 05/011/2009.
(C)Copy of the FIR.
(D)Another letter to SP, Bargarh, complaining non receiving of F.I.R Dt.09/10/2009.
(E)Copy of letter to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bargarh from Gajendra Meher Dt.03/04/2009 about the incident of fraud.
(F)Xerox copy of withdrawal slip with signature of one Harischandra Meher and Gajendra Meher, where in it is seen that for Ganejdra Meher seal is made a Secretary for Harischandra Mehera, President seal is used.
Point to be noted here is as per the contention of the Complainant Harischandra Meher is Vice-President of the K.W.C.S. Ltd.
(G)Copy of Board meeting and resolution Dt.22/09/2008.
(H)Copy of from No.60 for opening of Saving Bank Account Dt.03/10/2008 which shows the Harischandra Meher as Vice-President and Gajendra Meher as Secretary.
(I)Letter from one Murali Prasad Bhoi dated nil about explaining the President on dated 10/02/2009 about the withdrawal with out a pass book.
Point to be noted here is that, this document to which the Opposite Party relies itself admits the withdrawal being allowed without a pass book presented along with the withdraw slips.
(9) Though the pass book as well as the ledger book speaks release order to be mandatory while making with drawal, how the accountant allowed withdrawal without a pass book and release order from proper authorities is a big question and whether this is done with the connivance of the Complainant or any other one is out of scope of this Forum.
(10) A criminal case vide No. 260/2009 U/S 419,420,468,471,34 IPC is still pending investigation. Here the Opposite Party raised his objection and submitted that when the matter is pending in Criminal Court a proceeding should not be completed here. To counter this objection of the Opposite Party the Complainant relies on a decision vide 2005 I CIR 595 West Bengal which says that there is no bar for a consumer forum even if a Criminal Case is pending on the matter. The Forum also feels that the issues to be solved are different in nature in both the proceedings and the Consumer Protection Act always preaches. Summary completion of complaints, are of the opinion that the proceeding should not be stayed till the result of Criminal Proceeding is arrived because of the nature of issues are totally different in nature.
(11) Complainant relies on various decisions listed before the support of his cases.
(a) AIR 2000 SC 2181
(b) 2005 I CPR Delhi 131-344.
© 2005 II CPR 123 Delhi.
(d) 2005 I CPR 595 WB.
(e) 2005 I CPR 131 Delhi.
Gone through the decision filed by the Complainant and found that except the AIR 2000 SC 2181 decision others are in consistent with the contention of the Complainant speaking for his cause.
(12) The contentions raised by the Opposite Party Bank as explained in their version and stated above case in para eight are not accepted by this Forum, because they all are self explanatory ones and need not require a big analysis inview of the supporting documents available with the case record.
(13) The Forum also feels that the agents ( employees) of the banks operate on behalf of the Bank and for every act done by them the Bank will be solely charged and responsible. As people Trust the Bank and do their business with Bank and not for the reasons of some persons sitting in the counters and Banks can not refrain from their liabilities for such reasons that some fraud is done by some employees with connivance with others.
(14) The Opposite Party Bank conterded that it is the Bank which has initiated the reporting to the police and not the Complainant because they have acted availability and done the work and to escape doing all there things. Shattering the repute of the Bank from the documents attached to the record it is found that the Complainant complained to IIC, Town Thana Bargarh on Dt.18/05/2009 where as the fact is known to them on Dt.03/04/2009. However it is also seen that the Opposite Party has written letters to accept the FIR on Dt.07/05/2009 and matter letter in the matter to SP, Bargarh on Dt.05/11/2009. The Opposite Party alleges that the signatures one of the Secretary and Vice-President in the withdrawal slip on the fateful day and to cause fraud they did not show the pass book to the accountant and escaped because they here aware that Release Order is a must is marked in the pass book and if pass book is shown the accountant will object to it, this was denied by the Complainant he has not done such thing such because he was having the pass book with him so there is no question of non-production.
(15) Another thing was noted perusing the record is that some documents filed by the Parties bearing signs of Gajendra Meher, Secretary, Khuntapali WCS, bears signature in Oriya (Particular the FIR) and some others are in English which raises doubts in the work. What so ever be the reasons from the documents filed by the Parties especially one letter filed by the Opposite Party Bank proves that production of pass book was allowed by the accountant of the Bank, and with out verification of ledger book withdrawal without a release order was allowed which is gross negligence of the Opposite Party Bank being related with the guardian of public money.
(16) The Opposite Party also contended that if an order is passed now it will create problems in the criminal proceedings. The Forum feels that both the proceedings are different in relation to their nature and the Opposite Party also did not attained any stay from any other counterflow to act upon. Again the Forum feels that completing the proceedings here and passing an order will not hamper or affect the criminal proceeding and criminal proceeding is not a bar for adjudication of consumer complaints. Another thing also ripples the mind of this Forum is that why adjudication of this case will be stayed till the criminal proceeding related to this case is over and all the poor weaver members of the weaver compensative society will be made to suffering with out their own fault.
(17) So far as Opposite Party contention to the Complainant is a weavers cooperative society doing business for profit so not a consumer under C.P. Act-1986, this Forum is of the opinion that it is already held by number of earlier decision at different levels that all Bank Customers having account with the Banks are customers of the Bank and there by are consumers as per the C.P. Act.
(18) Finally, from the documents filed with the case record and from the various submission at the time of hearing it was clearly understand that manhandling of savings Bank Account of Complainant has happened and latches is found with the Opposite Party Bank who allowed withdrawal without proper checking and validation and even fore going a procedure with regards to production of pass book while withdrawal though there were certain regulations were present which are presumed to be known to the Opposite Party Bank as this is not the Ist withdrawal from the same savings Bank Account.
Under the explained facts and circumstances the Opposite Party Bank is guilty of negligence of deficiency in service.
Hence order:-
The Opposite Party Bank will pay Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only to the savings Bank Account No. 30509818903 of the Complainant along with an interest of 9%(ninepercent) per annum beginning from the withdrawal date i.e. Dt.10/02/2009.
The Opposite Party Bank is directed to pay a compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for the suffering of the Complainant.
The above to be completed within thirty days of pronouncement of the order failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest will be charged on the whole award amount till the realization.
Parties are at liberty to seek other methods for realization of their grievances.
The money deposited by the Bank should be kept in the Account No. 30509818903 of the complainant till the final disposal of the Criminal Case and same can not be withdrawn. However if the final disposal of the criminal proceeding involves conviction of the two persons whose signatures are appended to the withdrawal slip Opposite Party Bank will use appropriate methods to made recoveries if any arises from the responsible persons and not from the Account of the Complainant.
The case is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
Sd/- Sd/-
I agree, I agree,
(Smt. Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
