HON'BLE MR. KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI
This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, preferred against the order and judgement dated 01/06/2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in CC No. 41/2018.
Brief fact of the Appellants’ case is that the Respondent no.1/Complainant had visited the Appellant no.2/Bank in the month of February, 2017, for the purpose of depositing money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only, in a MIS Scheme, when he had been intercepted by one employee of the bank viz. Sourav Das, who had been previously known to him and who assured him that he would offer all kinds of help in investing the said amount in a MIS Scheme. In this regard, the said Sourav Das took the signature of the Respondent/Complainant in the Fixed Deposit Form, under the MIS Scheme and also took the pass-book and other documents from the Respondent/Complainant.
On 17/02/2017, the said Sourav Das handed over two certificates amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- each vide certificate nos. 828973 and 828974, but the said Sourav Das did not hand over the other documents, which had been taken by him from the Respondent/Complainant. The said Sourav Das, further stated that the interest amount would be automatically credited to the bank a/c of the Respondent/Complainant, after two/three months and he would hand over the documents after the first instalment. As per the assurance of the said Sourav Das, the Respondent/Complainant, visited the bank on four/five occasions and even met with the Appellant no.1, for the return of his documents but could not meet the said Sourav Das. On 17/05/2017, the Respondent/Complainant on not finding Sourav Das, met with the Appellant no.1 and informed him about the incident and enquired about the status of the bank a/c and FD a/c. After hearing the Respondent/Complainant, the Appellant no.1 asked him to hand over the said original FD Certificates, who kept the same, stating that some enquiries were required, against the receipt. After the passage of several months as the Respondent/Complainant did not receive any response from the Appellant no.2/Bank and also not being able to meet the staff viz. Sourav
Das and also not being able to get the pass-book and documents, he created chaos at the bank premises and the Appellant/Bank was compelled to furnish a statement, from which he came to know that Sourav Das had taken another Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.5,00,000/- from his bank account. On 20/06/2017 the Respondent/Complainant, issued a letter to the Appellant no.2/Bank to take necessary steps, but with no result. On 28/07/2017, the Respondent/Complainant filed an application under RTI Act, from which he came to know that the Respondent/Complainant had closed his a/c on 18/04/2017 and the amount had been taken by him. After knowing such facts, he became perplexed as to how the FD A/c had been closed without his permission and which was in gross violation of the Banking Rules. The Respondent/Complainant, had never issued any consent and therefore such act on the part of the bank authorities amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Finding no alternative, the Respondent/Complainant lodged this case with necessary prayers.
The Appellant/Bank appeared to contest the case by filing written version, wherein all the material allegations had been denied and only admitted that the Respondent/Complainant was a customer of the bank having a SB A/c bearing no. 1302638818. It was also admitted that the Respondent/Complainant had maintained two MIDR A/c being nos.167907 & 167908 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- and 2,00,000/-, respectively. It was further mentioned that as both the Respondent/Complainant and Sourav Das who was a resident of Raiganj and both knew each other, the Respondent/Complainant had sought the assistance of Sourav Das to make new MIDRs, each amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-. It was also mentioned that Sourav Das had mis-utilized his position, as an employee and had stolen 100 leaves of Demand Drafts and 100 leaves of FD receipts, security items and issue register from the vault of the bank and a written complaint against him had been lodged on 19/05/2017. As a result, Sourav Das was suspended and his salary was reduced to 1/3rd and a Department Proceeding had also started. It was further mentioned that the Respondent/Complainant had transferred the closure amount of his two MIDR a/cs bearing nos. 167907 & 167908, to his SB A/c no. 1302638818, by putting his signature on the back of the instrument. It is also mentioned that as the Respondent/Complainant never put his signature at the time of receiving the FDR in the Register maintained by the Appellant/Bank, there was no official record of FDR, for which reason the Appellant/Bank was unable to refund the money. It was also prayed that the case be dismissed.
After going through the evidence on record and on hearing the parties, the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur passed the impugned order directing the Appellants to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest, at the prevailing bank interest rate, from 17/02/2017 along with Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @ 10% per annum would be levied. The Appellants were also given the liberty to realize the amount from the salary of Sourav Das month to month after giving him an opportunity.
Being aggrieved by the above order the Appellant preferred this instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. Forum below had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.
Decisions with Reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants at the time of final hearing, submitted that the fraud was committed by the employee Sourav Das in his personal capacity as because the Appellants did not authorize Sourav Das to steal the documents from the bank. Hence, the loss incurred by the Respondent/Complainant should be entirely recovered from him and not from the Appellant/Bank. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant had argued at the time of final hearing that the Respondent/Complainant had gone to the bank for the purpose of depositing money, amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- in MIS Scheme and it was only incidental that Sourav Das being known to him previously, had assisted him in this regard, by taking his signature in Forms and had also taken his pass-book and other documents and handed over two certificates amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- each, being nos. 828973 & 828974, respectively. He had also assured that the interest amount would be automatically credited to the bank a/c of the Respondent/Complainant and he would hand over the documents after that. Under the circumstance, he submitted that the Appellant/Bank was responsible for the fraud practiced by the said Sourav Das and prayed for upholding the impugned order. He had relied in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pishora Singh (D) THRU L RS Vs. Bank of Punjab & Ors. on 18/01/2017, Hon’ble NCDRC in State Bank of India Vs. ALLABUX S/O MOHAMMED MURTUZA, R/O KEMBHAVI TALUK SHORAPUR GULBARGA KARNATAKA on 20/09/2018 Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal in Punjab National Bank Vs. Ratna Banerjee on 15/06/1994 & Hon’ble NCDRC in Sarita Devi Prakash Chand Jain; S M Tatiya; Anil Champa Lal Kochar, Manager Vs. Ram Chandra Shambhu Chaudhari; Shailesh Shirish Chandra Saraf on 18/11/2014.
None appeared on behalf of the Respondent no2, Sourav Das as such the case was heard ex-parte against him.
The only contention that needs to be ascertained is, whether the Appellant/Bank can be held liable for the misdemeanors caused by their, the then employee, Sourav Das. The Respondent/Complainant did not commit any wrong when he visited the bank and obtained the help of the said Sourav Das, as he was previously known to him. But the Appellants in order to absolve the Appellant/Bank from any mischief done by the said Sourav Das, had thrust the entire blame upon the said Sourav Das, as his personal responsibility. In this regard, it is not disputed that the Respondent/Complainant had been handed over two certificates bearing nos. 828973 & 828974. From the internal proceedings, conducted by the bank and under charge no.2, levelled against the said Sourav Das, interalia, 10 FDRs 828973 to 828982 had been stolen by the said Sourav Das, and 828973 & 828974 had been used for issuance of fake certificates which had been handed over to the Respondent/Complainant and four being nos. 828977, 828981, 828982 and 828900 had been recovered with the other four FDRS being untraceable. Under the circumstance, such valuable FDR receipts which ought to have been under strict and safe custody of responsible officers of the bank, clearly points out to the negligent and careless preservation of the same, leading to mental, physical and financial harassment of the consumers of the bank, like the Respondent/Complainant. Moreover, the said FDRs bearing nos. 828973 & 828974 dated 17/02/2017 bears not only the seal of the bank but also the signatures and the Respondent/Complainant cannot be faulted to have been deceived into accepting the same as original FDRs, issued by the Appellant/Bank. This deceit practiced upon the Respondent/Complainant due to the negligence by the officials of the bank, not only means deficiency of service, but the bank from the charge no.2 clearly admitted about the nature of the execution of the above-mentioned FDRs, bearing nos. 828973 & 828974 dated 17/02/2017, caused unfair trade practice by informing to the RTI application on 01/09/2017, that the same had been closed before maturity and the amount had been withdrawn.
Moreover, even if a fraud had been practiced by an employee the bank ought to have compensated the victim, as the victim is not only a valued customer, but also the consumer, protected by statute and should not have been misled or deflect, the victim from obtaining justice.
Under the circumstance, the Appellant/Bank attempt to absolve itself from the misdeeds of the employee fails miserably and as a result, the instant appeal also fails.
It is therefore
ORDERED
That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
The impugned order is hereby upheld. The Appellants are directed to comply with the impugned order, within 45 days from the date of this order.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost.
Copy of the order be also sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.
Statutory amount deposited be returned from whom received.
Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC, to do the needful.
