BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 5 of 2011
Akram Aktar Laskar, ……………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Federal Bank Ltd.,
Registered office: Alwaye, Kerala. O.P No.1.
2. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd.,
Silchar Branch, Shyama Prasad Road,
Shillong Patty, Silchar-1. O.P No.2.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Sri Suddhasatta Choudhury, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Sibdas Dutta, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 15-06-2011, 06-07-2011, 04-08-2011
Date of written argument……………… 23-02-2016,
Date of judgment………………………. 04-12-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- The complainant Akram Aktar Laskar is holder of SB A/C No.7673 of Federal Bank, Silchar Branch. As per his Pass Book the closing balance was 32,909/- as on 20-09-2008. The Pass Book was maintained manually. Subsequently on 1st part of September 2009 he wanted to withdraw some amount from his aforesaid bank account but the bank authority handed over him an electronic Pass Book containing closing balance was 1,770/-. Accordingly he was not allowed to withdraw the requisite amount. Therefore he approach the bank Manager but in vain. Subsequently he issued legal notice and delivered on 21-12-2010. But the bank did not satisfy his demand. Hence, brought the instant case under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
- The O.P-Bank and its Branch Manager submitted joint W/S. In the W/S denied the allegation of closing balance and also took plea that there was no disservice on the part of the bank.
- During hearing the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited both manually maintained and electronically maintained Pass Book. The copy of legal notice also exhibited. The O.Ps also examined the Chief Manager of the Federal Bank, Silchar Branch and exhibited statement of Account and other relevant papers in connection with the SB A/C of the complainant. The O.P also examined 3 (three) more witness and exhibited some other documents to establish the fact inter alia that on the relevant date of deposit who were on duty as cashier. The complainant also submitted written argument and the O.P also submitted written argument. We have also heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P.
- In this case it is admitted fact that the complainant was holder of above mentioned SB A/C. The exhibited Pass Books vide Ext-1 is not disputed except its some entries. The plea of the O.P is that some entries made in the manually maintained Pass Book were not made by authorized Bank Employee rather the O.P has doubt about the fact of deposition and accordingly on strong suspicious lodged a criminal case against a Kutub Uddin Choudhury a class IV employer of the Bank vide Silchar P/S Case No.2011/2009. The O.P also in W/S stated that the complainant lodged a criminal case for embezzlement of his money against said Kutub Uddin Choudhury vide Silchar P/S Case No.1860.
- We have also gone through the evidence on record adduced by the complainant. His Ext-1 Pass Book shows the balance of Rs.32,909/- as on 20/09/2008 but his new Pass Book (electronically maintained) does not reflect that fact. It is not clear from evidence on record and from the fact of the case as how much money he wanted to withdraw on last part of September 2009. It is also not clear from case record as which deposited amount has not been entered in to newly issued Pass Book. From the record it is revealed that the newly issued Pass Book maintain with balance of Rs.1,770/- as on 31/03/2009 and the complainant did not make any specific allegation about any deposit. It is not clear from evidence on record, as how many transactions were not entered in to newly issued Pass Book. No deposit slip also exhibited to establish the specific fact regarding genuine deposit transaction.
- Of course, from additional W/S of the O.P and from written argument it is observed that a criminal case is pending against a Bank employee regarding misappropriation of money of the complainant. But the said fact is not sufficient to conclude as whether Bank is liable. To attribute liability to the Bank for act of its employee it is required to conclude as whether the money grabbing by employee of the Bank is coming within the purview of the employment.
- In that aspect on hearing both sides counsels and perusal of various case law we have come to a conclusion that if the complainant hand over money to a Bank employee and obtain receipt and that the said Bank Employee misappropriated the amount, the said activity in respect of misappropriation is coming under the purview of employment, and Bank is liable for that act of its employee to compensate. But in the instant case there is no evidence as whether the specified amount handed over to the Bank employee and whether any receipt received from the Bank employee with seal and signature. If any receipt is received, it is the burden of the complainant to establish that fact. But in this case nothing establish in that aspect.
- That is why, we are constraint to say that if any amount hand over to the Bank employee without obtaining any receipt and said Bank employee did misappropriation, the said amount of money, the said criminal activity of the Bank employee is not coming under the purview of term employment.
- Therefore in this case we do not find any disservice/deficiency of service on the part of Bank and it Branch Manager.
- So, the O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation or this District Forum is not inclined to grant any relief to the complainant.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest without any cost. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 04th day of December, 2017.
