BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.88/2009 Order dated this the 23rd day of October 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Siddaraju S. S/o Siddaiah, No.393, Swarna Sandra, 9th Cross, Mandya City. (By Sri.M.K.Jagadeesha., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya City. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate) Date of complaint 21.07.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 07.08.2009 Date of order 23.10.2009 Total Period 2 Months 16 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from 05.03.2007 till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming Rs.25,000/- with interest and compensation. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is the account holder in the Opposite party Bank in S.B.Account No.5052 and making transaction and on 05.03.2007 the Complainant deposited sum of Rs.25,000/- to his S.B.Account. The concerned official of the bank made entry in the pass book. He was under the impression that the amount has been adjusted to his S.B.Account. The Complainant when went to draw the amount of Rs.25,000/-, but to the utter shock he came to know that the said amount has not been entered in the bank records and credited to his S.B.Account. The official of the bank took the pass book from the Complainant on the pretext of getting it verified with the bank ledger and to make necessary entry and after number of visits, the bank authority issued another pass book making entry from 04.09.2007 and thereby they have intentionally omitted to enter the details of previous transactions. Though the Opposite party is bound to adjust the deposited amount to his account, but without crediting the same to his account, the Opposite party has committed gross negligence and there is clear deficiency in service. The Complainant made representation on 13.03.2008 and Opposite party issued endorsement dated 18.03.2008 along with the ledger extract stating that after verifying the entries in the ledger along with the challan dated 05.03.2007 there is no entry in the records for having deposited Rs.25,000/- to the S.B. Account. The Opposite party officials in order to knock off this Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Complainant have intentionally omitted to make entry in the concerned ledger extract. Therefore, the Complainant is put to misery and hardship. In spite of legal notice, the Opposite party has not credited the amount to his account. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the Complainant was regularly operating his account and he is an account holder. It is denied that on 05.03.2007, the Complainant has deposited Rs.25,000/- with the Opposite party Bank to his account and bank officials have made the entry in the pass book. The pass book entry has been concocted in collusion with the suspended employees of the Bank. The Complainant has not at all deposited Rs.25,000/- on 05.03.2007 under challan no.12 of that date differs with the disputed challan produced in the case. Even in the transaction sheet of 05.03.2007 this Rs.25,000/- does not find a place. The other allegations are denied. There is no negligence nor deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party Bank. It is denied that just to knock off the amount, the bank officials have omitted the entry of Rs.25,000/-. The Opposite party Bank based on the nature of the complaint made by the customers has submitted the report. However, domestic enquiry is still pending. Until a detailed report of the enquiry officer is received, the report submitted by the Opposite party Bank is not a conclusive proof. In case of serious loss, the Complainant can approach the Civil Court for the remedy. The Opposite party Bank has initiated criminal proceedings against the suspended employees before the Mandya West Police. There is no merit in the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and Complainant has produced Ex.C.1 to C.7. The Opposite party is examined and Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 & R.2. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he has deposited Rs.25,000/- with the Opposite party Bank on 05.03.2007 under challan no.12? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not making entry in the S.B.Account of the Complainant? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- with interest and compensation? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that the Complainant is a customer of the Opposite party Bank having S.B.Account No.5052 and making transaction. According to the Complainant, on 05.03.2007 he deposited Rs.25,000/- to his S.B.Account under challan no.12 and the concerned bank officials made entry in the pass book. But, when he went to draw the amount, he was informed that there is no entry of deposit of Rs.25,000/- and official of the bank took the pass book on the pretext of getting it verified with the bank ledger and to make necessary entry regarding deposit of Rs.25,000/- and after some visits, the bank authority issued another pass book making entry from 04.09.2007 only and omitted to enter the details of previous transactions including deposit of Rs.25,000/- on 05.03.2007. The Opposite party has denied the deposit of Rs.25,000/- by the Complainant and contended that in the transaction sheet and the ledger extract there is no entry of deposit of Rs.25,000/- and the challan is created with collusion of suspended employees. 9. The Complainant has produced the challan Ex.C.1 and also the pass book Ex.C.4, account extract Ex.C.5 and copy of the letter Ex.C.2 and the reply of 2nd Opposite party as per Ex.C.3 & C.7. Even the Complainant has got issued legal notice as per Ex.C.6 and Opposite party has replied as per Ex.C.7. If we peruse the pass book Ex.C.4, the entries are made only from 04.09.2007 and it appears to be a new pass book in view of the handwritings. So, the evidence of the Complainant that the official of the bank took the old pass book stating that the entries will be verified and entry with regard to the deposit of Rs.25,000/- would be made, but later they issued the new pass book making entry only from 04.09.2007 has to be accepted. The Opposite party in his evidence admitted that Ex.C.1 challan is a bank challan and also admitted that Ex.C.4 pass book issued by the Opposite party Bank. This Opposite party has gone to the extent of denying that at the time of issuing the pass book Ex.C.4 the balance is shown as Rs.34,490/-. The evidence of the Opposite party that the seal and signature in the challan is created cannot be accepted at all. It cannot be accepted that in collusion with the suspended employees the entries in the pass book Ex.C.4 and the challan Ex.C.1 are created, because there is clear seal of the bank having received the cash and the cashier has put signature and put the challan no.12. The evidence of the Complainant that he made the deposit of Rs.25,000/- with the cashier and cashier issued the counter challan cannot be rejected at all. Even though, there is no entry in the transaction sheet Ex.R.1 and thereafter in the S.B. Account of the Complainant i.e., ledger book as per Ex.R.1 & R.2, but a customer will not be knowing the entries made in the bank records, until he gets the copy of the account extract. Mere stray admission in evidence that contents in ledger extract are correct will not fortify the defence of Opposite party, because Complainant will not be knowing the meaning of ledger. It is pertinent to note that in transaction sheet there is no column for challan number at all and as per Ex.R.1 on that day five sheets have been used and all the five sheets bear number 1 to 50. So, the contention of the Opposite party that the challan no.12 does not find a place in the transaction sheet Ex.R.1 cannot be accepted at all. A customer will depend upon the counter challan issued by the bank and entries made in the pass book and he will not doubt the entries made in the pass book or the challan issued. Merely because, the Opposite party officials have failed to make entry in the transaction sheet and later crediting the said amount to the S.B. account of the Complainant, it cannot be accepted that the Complainant has not deposited Rs.25,000/- on 05.03.2007 and in fact he has given the petition Ex.C.2 on 13.03.2008 and when the Opposite party has issued Ex.C.3 reply on 18.03.2008, it is not the case that the challan is created in collusion with the bank officials. What they have stated is that there is difference in the balance as on 04.09.2007 mentioned in the pass book to that off the ledger entry and the deposit of Rs.25,000/- under the challan is not entered in the bank records and in this connection, the matter is referred to Internal Audit and after receipt of the audit report necessary action would be taken. Further, when the legal notice was issued, the Opposite party has replied as per Ex.C.7 stating that they have already informed the Complainant and requested the advocate to send the Complainant to the Bank along with the pass book and correspondence for verification and further action. It is pertinent to note that in the version, the Opposite party has pleaded that on the complaint made by the customer, the Opposite party Bank has submitted the report and domestic enquiry is pending before the enquiry officer and even the bank has already initiated criminal proceedings against the suspended employees by lodging a complaint before the Mandya West Police in crime no.62/08. So, it clearly proves that some employees of the bank have misappropriated the amount of the customers making wrong entries and omitting to make entries of the deposit and they are suspended for the fault committed by the employees by the bank, the complaint cannot be penalized. There is no reason to suspect Ex.C.1 challan which is admittedly of Opposite party Bank and when it contains the seal of the bank challan number and signature of the cashier and triscroll. Therefore, it proves that the Complainant has deposited Rs.25,000/- under challan no.12 on 05.03.2007. 10. POINT NO.2:- According to the Complainant, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not making entry in his S.B. Account and he came to know this fact of not entering Rs.25,000/- to his S.B.Account when he went to draw the amount and the Bank official informed such amount is not found in the bank records and the bank officials received the pass book stating that they would verify and make entry and thereafter issued fresh pass book Ex.C.4. In view of the circumstances of the case, the evidence of the Complainant has to believed in the presence of the documents produced by the Complainant and the Opposite party immediately after coming to know to this fact on 13.03.2008 he has given the petition Ex.C.2 and the Opposite party has issued endorsement Ex.C.3 and there is no denial of the deposit of Rs.25,000/- or creation of the challan in that Ex.C.3. Admittedly, there is no entry in the S.B. Account of the Complainant about the deposit of Rs.25,000/- and this is the dereliction of duty of the staff of the bank with intention to knock off the amount of the customer. 11. Merely because, the Opposite party has referred the complaint of the customers to the enquiry officer and audit report and the complaint is filed before the police for misappropriation of the amount by the bank officials, the Opposite party cannot escape the liability of giving proper service to the customer, making entry in the pass book differently to that off the entries made in the ledger extract clearly amounts to deficiency in service and the Opposite party bank is vicariously liable for the mis-used of the amount in the bank deposited by the customers and therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and the Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest. We have come across so many cases filed against the Opposite party Bank with similar complaints of not making entries in the account of the customer in spite of deposit of the cheques and cash by the customers. 12. Though the Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- since interest has been awarded, it is not proper to award compensation. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from 05.03.2007 till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of October 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
