JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (  for short, ‘the Act’) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.12.2017 of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun ( for short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 67 of 2017 of the petitioner wherein the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar dated 31.03.2016 / 31.03.2017 in complaint no. 319 of 2012 was upheld.

2.       The brief facts as stated by the complainants in their complaint are that on 13.10.2012, they had deposited a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in their account against a duly executed receipt by the petitioner. After about a week, the complainants visited the bank for getting their passbook updated and came to know that said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has not  been deposited in their account. The complainants contacted the Branch Manager for non deposit of the amount but no action was taken.   The complainants contended that this amounts to deficiency in service that despite deposit of money by them, money was not credited in their account and filed the complaint.

3.       The petitioner contested the complaint and filed its written version.  The plea taken by them was that complainant has not made the cashier a necessary party and that on complaint being made, the petitioner had lodged a criminal case against the bank official, namely, Sh. Rajendra.  It is further contended that that there is no entry in the ledger of the bank regarding deposit of the amount by the complainants and that complainant have not deposited the amount with the cash counter of the bank.  It was further contended that complainants were having some relation with delinquent officer of the  bank and they have made some outside transaction in collusion. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4.       The parties led their evidence before the District Forum.  After hearing the parties, the District Forum held as under:

“……….What the employee of the respondent bank do or what they enter in their authorized register or what they don’t do, its responsibility is not of the complainant, because such record is out of reach of him.  Thus in the circumstances of the present case when the complainant had proved the fact of depositing of money of Rs.7,00,000/- on Date 13.10.12 In Laksar Branch of Punjab National Bank in his account no.4132000110109976 by presenting the deposit slip, then in his account not doing entry of the deposition of this amount the bank had done deficiency in service and in such circumstances the respondent bank is responsible for paying the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the date of Deposit date 13.10.12 to the complainant alongwith interest from date 13.10.12 till the date of last payment and accordingly this complaint of the complainant is entitled to be allowed.”

5.       This order was impugned by the petitioner by way of an appeal.  The appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order and the plea of the petitioner that there was no deficiency in service on their part, since it was their employee who had committed fraud and other criminal offence and embezzled the amount, was rejected.  The State Commission has held as under:

“8.  The bank itself has taken the stand that their employee has made irregularity/embezzlement in certain accounts and an FIR was lodged against the erring official. If an employee of the bank has embezzled the amount of the customer, the bank being the employer, is also vicariously liable for the wrong committed by its employee.  Since the bank itself has admitted that their employee has committed embezzlement and hence being the employer of the delinquent officer / employee of the bank, the bank is equally liable and responsible and the bank is liable to pay the amount to the complainants.  We are not concerned with the fact as to whether the said deposit slip was forged by the delinquent officer of the bank in collusion with the complainants or not.  The fact remains that the deposit slip has been issued to the complainants, but the amount mentioned therein was not credited to their account, thereby putting them to loss.

9.       So far as deposit of the amount by the complainant in his account is concerned, the complainants have filed the deposit slip before the District Forum, which also contains the signatures of the official concerned as well as seal of the bank. The fact that the bank itself has lodged an FIR against its employee, is sufficient to prove that their employee has embezzled the funds of the customers, in order to have wrongful gain and inspite of receiving the amount from the customer and issuing the deposit slip, did not make the entry of the said amount in their account.  It is further pertinent to mention here that there is no cutting / overwriting in the said deposit slip, which rules out any malafide act on the part of the complainants.”

6.       This order is impugned before me. Similar contentions have been raised.  It is contended that the criminal act of embezzlement i.e. issuing fake receipt  without deposit of any money in the bank treasury was done by its employee and hence it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and they are not liable.  It is argued on behalf of the respondent that petitioner cannot escape from vicarious liability for the wrong of its employees.

7.       I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.  There is concurrent finding to the fact that a valid receipt had been issued by the employee of the petitioner. The petitioner has also admitted that person who had issued the receipt was its employee.  The petitioner, therefore, is responsible for all acts of its employee and cannot shun its responsibility if its employee had not performed its duty properly. There is concurrent finding of facts regarding deposit of the money by the complainants / respondents and this finding since is based on the documentary evidence, cannot be find fault with.  Since employee of the petitioner did not make proper entries in the relevant register and did not credit the said money in the account of the respondent, the petitioner being an employer cannot escape its vicarious liability for the acts of its employees.  It is apparent that similar revision petition relating to issuance of bank receipts on deposit by the account holder and thereafter not crediting the said amount in the account of the account holder by its employee had been dealt with by this Commission wherein this Commission in the matter of Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Hari Ram Yadav in Revision Petition No. 1923 of 2015 decided on 12.08.2015 concluded that bank cannot escape its vicarious liability for the acts of its employees even if FIR for embezzlement, commission of fraud had been filed by the petitioner bank and this Commission had found the said revision petition frivolous and while dismissing the said  revision petition, imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Despite such finding of this Commission, the petitioner had endeavoured to file this frivolous revision petition.  Therefore, while dismissing the present revision petition, I impose cost of Rs.20,000/- on the bank.  This cost shall be paid by the petitioner bank within four weeks from the date of this order to the complainants by way of demand draft failing which complainants are free to file the execution petition for recovery and in that case, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% on this amount from the date of filing of execution petition till its realization.

Revision Petition stands disposed of .