JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Mrs. S. Vasudharini, the complainant obtained Kamadhenu Deposit Scheme on 10.10.2006. According to her, she made a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for which she made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of cash and for the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- she paid the same through cheque. The Canara Bank- the Opposite Party issued the Kamadhenu Deposit Scheme i.e. FDR in favour of the complainant in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On maturity, she got back Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest in the sum of Rs. 7187/-. 2. In the month of September 2009, it transpired that the complainant had not deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The Canara Bank/OP unilaterally debited the sum of Rs. 61,383/- without any written communication. She approached the Bank and it replied that the amount paid in cash on 10.10.2006 was not credited in her account book and it is to be presumed that no cash in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by her in cash. 3. The defense set up by the petitioner/OP is that she could not produce the receipt of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- or any other evidence to show that the she paid the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The Bank admits that it realized the mistake and debited the amount of Rs. 61383/-. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that prior notice was sent to her. The notice was given by the Bank on 25.09.2009. On the same day the petitioner had suo moto debited the amount without hearing the complainant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. 4. However, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to return a sum of Rs. 61,383/- with interest @ 9% p.a. alongwith compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental agony. 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that this is a bonafide mistake on the part of the Bank. Although, this stand was not taken in the written version, yet, the counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a mistake due to upgradation in the computer system. He further submits that a departmental enquiry was held against two persons, namely, N. Kalyanaraman and Meena Chandrasekar but no action was taken against them as is apparent from the order itself. There is no evidence that the matter was reported to the highest authorities. The counsel for the petitioner lastly, pleaded that if the respondent produces the receipt or any other evidence, she would have a very good case. In the absence of the evidence, the case of the complainant falls flat. 6. All these arguments have left no impression upon this Commission. OP has committed an egregious mistake. First of all, how they gave the Kamadhenu FDR without receiving the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The story propounded by it does not just stack up. Secondly, no action was taken against the wrong doers. It appears that the Senior authorities were working in cahoots with the Junior Officers. As a matter of fact junior officers are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each for the negligence, inaction and passivity on their party. Again, there is no evidence that such matter was reported to the highest authority of the Canara Bank. It appears that the Bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. The attitude of authorities adds a shocking dimension to the situation. Whether the facts of this case have been hidden from the in-charge of the Bank? 7. Again, there is another deficiency on the part of the petitioner i.e. they remained silent for a period of three years. No action was taken by them. They did not know that the amount was not paid for the last three years. Perhaps there is no audit examination. All the matters are done in a happy go lucky manner. 8. Again the amount of Rs. 61,383/- was suo moto debited from the account of the petitioner arbitrarily and capriciously. The Bank had no courtesy to inform the complaint that this mistake was committed by them and they were going to rectify the same. No show cause notice was given before the amount was debited. The suo moto action was taken on the same day when the notice was authored. 7. The arguments put forward by the counsel for the petitioner that he should have produced the receipt of deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. Is bereft of merit. Can one keep the receipt for such a long time? Receipts are preserved for a week or two. Counsel for the petitioner argued that she did not embolden her case with any other evidence. We are fail to understand, what is any other evidence. It must be borne in mind that it is a Bank and nobody else, but the bank itself has to carry the ball in proving its case against the complaint. The State Commission has rightly held :- “Though the Fixed Deposit has been discharged even during 2007 itself, the opposite party had an audacity to recover a huge amount of Rs. 61383/-, claiming that there is no entry in the ledgers, for the payment of cash of Rs. 50,000/- during 2006. When specific questions were asked to the opposite party about the contemporaneous materials and about the action initiated against the erring officials, the reply was negative. We can safely conclude that therefore some officials, who were handling the cash transactions during the relevant period, would have failed to make an entry in the ledger and committed misappropriation, and shifting blame on the customer, without intimation and unilaterally debited a huge amount. Banking system is based on trust and faith. The Banks act as custodian of public money and they are accountable. They have acted in an irresponsible and negligent manner. The Opposite party is a Public Sector nationalized Bank performing public duties and they should function fairly. If not, it will definitely erode the image of the Bank and demolish the confidence of the public in the Banking system, which is not good for banking institutions and general public. And again it mentions in Para No. 9:- “9. This is a classic case of fraudulent transaction by the bank. We do not want to leave the case as such. Though we can forward the allegations made in the complaint, to one of the police investigating agencies to proceed with the bank and its officials, we leave the option open to the complainant to proceed with the bankers for the alleged fraud committed.” 8. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The compensation granted in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is correct. The Revision Petition is dismissed but there will be no orders as to costs. | 
