1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (corresponding section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019) in challenge to the Order dated 30.04.2021 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha in Appeal No. 999 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 24.10.2006 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack in Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 2005.

2.       Learned counsel argued on admission on 04.08.2021 and 12.08.2021. Today he concludes his arguments.

3.       Perused the entire material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 24.10.2006, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 30.04.2021 and the petition.

4.       The factual matrix of the case has been succinctly captured by the State Commission in paragraph 3 of its Order of 30.04.2021. The same is reproduced below:

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has opened a SB account bearing No. 1675 with the OP Bank since 1997. It is alleged inter alia that complainant has deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 5.3.1999 and Rs.5,000/- on 9.1.1999 with the OP – Bank. OP No. 3 was the Clerk in charge receiving the payment but later on absconded. Complainant alleged further that on 27.10.2000 she received a letter from the OP Bank with a request to verify her account. So the complainant went to the Bank and it was found out that the entire SB amount deposited on 5.3.1999 and 9.1.1999 have been withdrawn. But actually she has not withdrawn the amount. So she approached OP Nos. 1 and 2 who gave assurance to look after the matter. Then as per the instruction of OPs 1 and 2 – Bank, complainant was asked to submit the Pass Book etc. When she tried to convince the OP Bank for refund of that SB amount of Rs.48,125.25 including amount of Rs. 30,000/- but all are in vain. So alleging about non-refund of that amount of Rs.48,125.25 as deficiency in service on OPs, the complainant filed the complaint praying to credit the amount in her account along with payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.

5.       The District Commission, vide its Order of 24.10.2006, allowed the complaint, on contest, and ordered the opposite party bank to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 48,125.25p. with the usual rate of interest of the bank from the respective dates of deposit till actual payment along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

6.       The bank appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order of 30.04.2021, dismissed the appeal, holding that “this Commission do not find any error or illegality with the impugned order of the learned District Forum”.

Extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below for ready reference:

10. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

11.       It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

12.       It is admitted fact that the respondent has SB account bearing No. 1675 with the OP Bank. It is not in dispute that OP No. 3 is employee of OP Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of alleged deposit of money.

13.       Complainant has stated that she has deposited Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 5.3.1999 and 9.1.1999 in her account. In support of that she submitted Annexure -1 series which are photocopies of necessary counter foils issued by the Bank. When the money has been deposited by issuing the counterfoils, the question of doubt over the misdeed of the employee of the OP Bank is hardly to be considered. The complainant has proved Annexure – 1A, the letter issued by the Bank asking her to deposit the pass book. That letter is dated 27.10.2000 and she further stated that after receiving letter when she went to the Bank, found that the aforesaid amount has been withdrawn. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before OP Nos. 1 and 2.

14.       It is only stated that deposit of Rs.30,000/- has not been made with the Bank. When there is a clear cut counterfoil of the Bank, the question of doubt on the deposit does not arise. Had there been any sort of doubt, the OP Bank could have sent the same for verification through handwriting expert. So the deposit of money with the Bank cannot be doubted. It is admitted in the written version that OP No. 3 is the employee of OP Nos. 1 and 2 and they have dismissed that person vide letter dated 1.10.2003 as it was found that he was issuing some receipts in his house. So the OP sent the notice in 2001 as stated earlier to deposit the pass book for verification. It is not forthcoming from the written version that the documents recovered from OP No. 3’s house related to the complainant but after verification what happened is not pointed out in the written version. It is only stated that Bank cannot be responsible for any transaction outside the premises. When the complainant does not speak about transaction made with OP No. 3’s house and OP also in the written version has not specifically stated about the transaction made by the complainant in the house of OP No. 3, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Bank is not responsible for any transaction during banking hours has lost it’s significant.  Now the question comes about duty of the Bank when amount has already found to be deposited with the Bank.

15.       Complainant has requested to regularise the account and there is already balance money of Rs.48,129/- including Rs.30,000/- and same is reflected in the pass book, such money should be available with her SB account. The allegation of the complainant is that time and again she had run to the concerned Bank but no effect has certainly brought deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank. On the other hand, complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. The question of limitation in this case does not arise because the deposit was made in 1999 but the loss of the money was found only in 2000 and subsequently, in 2003 when action was not taken. The case was filed in 2005. Moreover, SB account has been continuing, question of limitation to the nature of dispute does not arise as it is difficult to find out the actual commencement of period of limitation. Rather it is rightly observed by the learned District Forum that since it is a continuing business no limitation bar can hinder any claim.

16.       In view of aforesaid discussion, this Commission do not find any error or illegality with the impugned order of the learned District Forum. As such, it is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

7.       Concurrent findings have been returned by the two fora below. No crucial misappreciation of the evidence by the two fora below is visible; no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.

8.       It is an admitted and proved fact that an employee of the bank, while in the employment of the bank, had an FIR registered as well as departmental proceedings initiated against him for financial malfeasance.

9.       On 04.08.2021, during arguments on admission, learned counsel for the bank requested for an adjournment to seek instructions. The matter was posted to 12.08.2021.

On 12.08.2021, after hearing further arguments, we considered it appropriate and necessary to direct the chief executive of the bank to file his affidavit on the whole matter, based on its official record, through counsel. Learned counsel requested for a period of four weeks for the purpose. The matter was posted to14.09.2021.

10.     Today, on 14.09.2021, learned counsel informs that the requisite affidavit could not be filed as the concerned record is “very old”. Learned counsel then submits that he would like to seek instructions from the legal manager of the bank. After seeking instructions, learned counsel submits that a “reasoned order” be passed by this Commission “on merit”.

That is to say, in other words, the direction of this Commission for the chief executive to file an affidavit on the whole matter based on its official record is not intended to be complied with. This inter alia raises a question of what the bank does not want to place before this Commission. This inter alia also raises a question that why and for what reason the bank wishes to prevent the access to the relevant material information at its end, necessary for appreciation of the complete and correct facts in respect of its revision petition. All this per se does not weigh in favour of the bank.

11.     Learned counsel also submits, on instructions from the bank’s legal manager, that an explicit direction be made that the bank may recover the decretal amount from the employee against whom FIR was registered and departmental proceedings were undertaken for financial malfeasance. He further submits that the said employee has since been dismissed by the bank from its employment. He furthermore submits that no other employee is responsible, except the said employee since dismissed.

We fail to understand the purpose and objective behind seeking such explicit direction from this Commission in relation to one particular employee (alone). In case there is occasioning of financial malfeasance in the bank, it calls for inquiry, in the normal wont, from a level senior and external to the branch in question, it calls for fixation of responsibility, both on the employee or employees directly responsible for the malfeasance and on the employee or employees responsible for supervisory lapses. And the bank is free to recover its monies and to take other civil action, criminal action and departmental action against the employee or employees responsible, in accordance with its rules and as per the law, without having to seek any direction, explicit or implicit, from this Commission.

We find it unreasonable, illogical and inappropriate to make such categorical direction as has been requested for by the learned counsel on instructions from the bank’s legal manager.

On the contrary we find it reasonable, logical and appropriate to advise that responsibility be fixed on all (repeat all) employee or employees directly responsible and employee or employees responsible for supervisory lapses and the bank’s monies be recovered from all (repeat all) employee or employees responsible, in addition to other civil action, criminal action and departmental action, in accordance with the bank’s rules and as per the law, with the decision being taken from the level of the competent authority within the bank.

We also find it reasonable, logical and appropriate to advise the bank to inculcate and imbibe systemic improvements for future, to preclude both financial malfeasance as well as resultant loss and injury to its consumers.

12.     The revision petition, being misconceived and bereft of worth, frivolous and vexatious, causing wastage of time and resources of this Commission, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission within four weeks from today.

13.     The award made by the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, is confirmed. The same shall be made good by the bank through the branch manager of its concerned branch within four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalties’, as per the law

14.     Learned counsel submits, on instructions from the legal manager of the bank, that the award will be made good within the stipulated period of four weeks from today. The submission is recorded.

15.     The learned counsel is requested to bring this Order to the notice of the functionary or functionaries who are at least two levels above and external to the branch manager of the concerned branch of the bank.  Same direction is made to the branch manager of the concerned branch and to the legal manager of the bank who has been instructing its learned counsel during these proceedings.

16.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.