Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

By this common judgement we are disposing of Appeal no.58/2010 filed by original O.P.-Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. and also Appeal no.1172/2009 filed by original complainant -Mrs.Uma Chhabra against judgement and award passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane at Konkan Bhavan in consumer complaint no.213/2008 decided on 31/7/2009.  While allowing the complaint partly, forum below directed Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. to pay to the complainant sum of `10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and `5000/- towards cost of the complaint.  As such original O.P.- Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. has filed Appeal no.58/2010 and original complainant –Mrs.Uma Chhabra has filed another appeal bearing no.1172/2009 seeking enhancement of compensation than awarded by the forum below.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

Complainant –Mrs.Uma Chhabra had filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vashi Branch at Navi Mumbai.  According to complainant, she had opened Saving Bank account no.51988 in the said branch of the bank and as per passbook issued by the bank on 10/9/2005, there was balance of `2,01,262.25ps. Then on 12/12/2005 amount in Saving bank account was shown to `4,10,137.25. Thereafter, on 08/9/2008 there was balance of `2,04,344.25.  On 03/10/2008 her son had gone to the O.P. bank for pay order of `2,00,000/-.  He was at that time told that the said account of Mrs.Uma Chhabra was having an amount of `74,374.25ps. only and, therefore, she could not be given pay order of `2,00,000/-.  According to complainant, `2,00,000/- has been erroneously misappropriated by the bank and she has been deceived.  She therefore sent registered notice to the bank.  It was not answered and, therefore, she filed consumer complaint claiming that bank should be directed to pay to her in her bank account amount of `2,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and also should be directed to pay Rs.3 lakhs compensation for mental harassment and Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  She filed along with complaint affidavit and documents. 

O.P. filed written statement and contested the complaint.  According to O.P., complainant had opened Saving Bank account no.51988 in its’ branch at Vashi.  But according to O.P. as per section 4 of Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, the certified extract of the Ledger account is prima facie proof of the figures mentioned in the particular account of the customer.  They therefore, enclosed certified copy of the extract of ledger account of the Saving bank account of the complainant.  They pleaded that in April 2005, they updated their computer software system.  Complainant had updated the passbook till 02/2/2005. On 08/2/2005 she had deposited `2,00,000/- by cheque in her account.  But thereafter, in April 2005 new software system was brought into operation in the said branch.  While introducing new software system earlier information collected got purged in the new system and that is why while printing the passbook there appeared mistake.  Bank pleaded that from 04/2/2005 the initial amount in the balance was shown but voucher entries were shown w.e.f.1/4/2005 and because of this method owing to technical defect in the software in her saving bank passbook, amount shown in balance was found to be lesser than it was actually in her credit.  O.P. pleaded that voucher entries were taken from 01/4/2005 but debit and credit entries between 04/2/2005 and 01/3/2005 could not be printed in the passbook of the complainant.  Resultantly, when complainant deposited cheque of `2,00,000/- on 08/2/2005 or when amount of `30/- was added on 05/3/2005 by giving credit towards the interest, these items were not recorded in her passbook because of technical defect or system fault of the computer system.  However, in the bank’s server or in the general ledger of the bank of the said branch the entries were properly taken.  On 03/10/2008 complainant’s son came to collect pay order of `2,00,000/-.  At that time passbook was updated and from that date onwards the correct entries were already taken in the passbook of the complainant and son of the complainant got satisfied with the entries thus made by the bank on 03/10/2008.  Still complainant had sent registered notice to the bank.  It was incorrect notice.  Hence, they had sent reply through their advocate on 08/12/2008.  According to O.P. they had not misappropriated the amount.  They had not committed any mistake.  Complainant was not deprived of any money and, therefore, they are not guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  They pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Upon hearing rival counsels and on perusal of affidavits and documents placed on record, forum below held that bank was guilty of deficiency in service for rendering defective service to its customer (complainant herein) and, therefore, complainant was entitled to get some amount towards compensation and some amount towards cost and, ultimately, forum below allowed the complaint partly and directed O.P. bank to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for her mental agony and harassment and also directed bank to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.  Not satisfied with the meager amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, complainant herself filed Appeal no.1172/2009, whereas Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd./original O.P. filed Appeal no.58/2010. 

We heard Mrs.Vandana-Advocate for the original complainant.  Mr.R.A.Tekale-Advocate for the original O.P.

We are finding that the order passed by the forum below is appearing to be just, proper and sustainable in law.  It is an admitted fact that complainant is having an account with the Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vashi branch.  According to complainant on 10/9/2005 amount shown in her saving bank passbook was `2,01,262.25ps.  Then on 12/12/2005 amount shown in the passbook of the complainant by the bank was `4,10,137.25ps.  On 08/9/2008 amount in balance shown in her passbook was `2,04,344.25ps. Thereafter, she deposited a cheque of Rs.70,000/- on 03/10/2008.  Amount of  balance in her account was `2,74,374.25ps. but bank showed amount of `74,347.25ps. only and, therefore, complainant thought that amount of `2,00,000/- has been misappropriated by the bank. 

Bank in the course of arguments and in the written statement admitted that on 08/2/2005 complainant had withdrawn through cheque no.919401 `2,00,000/- and, thereafter, on 05/3/2005 amount of `30/- was credited in the account of the complainant and, thus, two entries were not finding place in the passbook.  Complainant however admitted that cheque dated 08/2/2005 bearing no.919401 was bearing her signature and she had issued the cheque, though this cheque was not recorded in the passbook of the complainant.  Her admission clearly goes to show that she had issued the cheque in fact dated 08/2/2005 bearing no.919401.  So in the ledger account of the bank this amount is rightly debited by the bank though it is not finding place in the updated passbook of the complainant.  Bank had credited the amount of `30/- in the account of the complainant on 05/3/2005, but this was not reflected in the passbook.  However, forum below held that bank was guilty of deficiency of service because proper entries were not recorded or taken in the passbook of the complainant and bank is laying blame on the newly introduced computer software when they updated existing software.  If while introducing updated software, bank is committing mistakes of this nature, then bank has to blame itself and not the customer.  Customer must be issued passbook or entries in the passbook directly in accordance with the entries that are maintained by the bank in its ledger account of the particular customer.  In other words, entries in the ledger account must tally in the passbook of the given customer.  Exactly, this has not happened in case of the complainant.  Two entries were missing from the passbook of complainant though those were the entries even in the ledger account of the bank maintained in the server of the bank.  Forum below held that complainant was given defective service in terms of section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  because the passbook was not tallying with the ledger account of the complainant maintained by the bank in its branch.  Forum below held that even if there was technical defect of the computer system newly introduced by the bank, the mistake occurred and for the mistake on the part of the bank, bank must be held to be guilty of deficiency in service.  Forum below came down heavily against employees of the bank because they had tried to pass on the buck on the newly introduced computer system but it was the negligence on the part of employees and officers of the bank and in the course of arguments indirectly O.P. admitted that they had committed mistake and forum below held that their mistake was unpardonable, inexcusable, they were guilty of deficiency in service in giving service to the complainant or bank customer.  Forum below therefore held that not giving two entries in the passbook of complainant when those amounts were available in the bank’s ledger account that itself can be a cause of great worry to the poor customer like complainant. A person can get shock if he or she finds that her `2,00,000/- are missing from passbook on one fine morning, since complainant was a senior citizen and was sick person.  Forum below held that showing `74,000/- only in place of `2,74,000/- was something inexcusable and, therefore, forum below held that there was deficiency of service on the part of bank qua bank customer herein and forum below therefore, passed an award directing bank to pay a sum of `10,000/- for mental harassment and `5000/- as cost to the complainant.

On the whole we are finding that order passed by the forum below in the circumstances is appearing to be just and proper.  No fault can be found in the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  Appeal filed by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. challenging said order is appearing to be devoid of any substance likewise appeal filed by Mrs.Uma Chhabra for getting enhanced compensation is also without merits.  She has been adequately compensated for the mistake committed by bank officials and bank staff for their throwing entire blame on the introduction of new computer system, which they alleged that thereby they had updated the existing software. Be that as it may.  We are finding that both the appeals are without any substance and the order passed by the forum below is proper and faultless.  Hence we pass following order:-

                                  ORDER

Both the appeals are dismissed.

Both the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Inform the parties accordingly.