JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (  for short, ‘the Act’) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.12.2017 of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 269 of 2014 of the petitioner wherein the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (for short, ‘the District Forum’) dated 14.10.2014 in complaint no. 141 of 2014 was upheld.

2.       The brief facts as stated by the complainant in her complaint are that on 17.10.2012, she had deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh in her account against a duly executed receipt by the petitioner.  She wanted to withdraw Rs.75,000/- from this account on 25.10.2012 but she was informed that there is no sufficient balance in her account and was told that there was no entry made in her account regarding deposit of Rs.5.00 lacs. The complainant / respondent contended that this amounts to deficiency in service that despite deposit of money by her, money was not credited in her account and filed the complaint.

3.       The petitioner contested the complaint and filed its written version.  The plea taken by them was that deposited receipt was a fake and fabricated document.  It was alleged that they had learnt that a bank official namely  Sh . Ravinder Kumar committed forgery in the end of year 2012 and had issued a fake receipt under his signature and  FIR had already been lodged against him with P.S. Kotwali, Laksar.  It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4.       The parties led their evidence before the District Forum.  After hearing the parties, the District Forum held as under:

“There is a receipt of the respondent bank of Date 17.10.2012 by which the complainant had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the respondent  bank.  In this regard it is the statement of the respondent bank that the receipt of the complainant is fake and forged by conspiracy.  In this regard it is also the statement of the respondent bank that his employee Ravindra making criminal relation with some consumers and outside people and making conspiracy prepared the fake receipts, the information of which has been given to the local police by the bank.  In this way the respondent bank is considering that his employee had prepared the fake and conspired record by conspiracy.  If the forgery is done by the bank employee then for that the complainant cannot be punished.  The receipt present on the record is the  indicative of this matter that the complainant had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the respondent bank.  If its forgery is done by the employee of the bank then bank is responsible for that, the complainant cannot be punished for that.”

5.       This order was impugned by the petitioner by way of an appeal.  The appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order and the plea of the petitioner that there was no deficiency in service on their part, since it was their employee who had committed fraud and other criminal offence and embezzled the amount, was rejected.  The State Commission has held as under:

“6.      The bank has taken the stand that their employee has forged the receipt regarding deposit of the amount by the complainant and that their employee has committed fraud and has entered into illegal relations with certain customers of the bank and has embezzled the amount.  If an employee of the bank has embezzled the amount of the customer, the bank being the employer, is also vicariously liable for the wrong committed by its employee.  Since the bank itself has admitted that their employee has committed embezzlement and hence being the employer of the delinquent officer / employee of the bank, the bank is equally liable and responsible and the bank is liable to pay the amount to the complainant.  We are not concerned with the fact as to whether the said deposit slip was forged by the delinquent officer of the bank in collusion with the complainant or not.  The fact remains that the deposit slip has been issued to the complainant, but the amount mentioned therein was not credited to its account, thereby putting him to loss.

7.       So far as deposit of the amount by the complainant in its account is concerned, the complainant has filed the original deposit slip before the District Forum, which also contains the signatures of the official concerned as well as seal of the bank. The fact that the bank itself has lodged an FIR against its employee, is sufficient to prove that their employee has embezzled the funds of the customers, in order to have wrongful gain and inspite of receiving the amount from the customer and issuing the deposit slip, did not make the entry of the said amount in their account.  It is further pertinent to mention here that there is no cutting / overwriting in the said deposit slip, which rules out any malafide act on the part of the complainant.”

6.       This order is impugned before me. Similar contentions have been raised.  It is contended that the criminal act of embezzlement i.e. issuing fake receipt  without deposit of any money in the bank treasury was done by its employee and hence it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and they are not liable.  It is argued on behalf of the respondent that petitioner cannot escape from vicarious liability for the wrong of its employees.

7.       I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.  There is concurrent finding to the fact that a valid receipt had been issued by the employee of the petitioner. The petitioner has also admitted that person who had issued the receipt was its employee.  The petitioner, therefore, is responsible for all acts of its employee and cannot shun its responsibility if its employee had not performed its duty properly. There is concurrent finding of facts regarding deposit of the money by the complainant / respondent and this finding since is based on the documentary evidence, cannot be find fault with.  Since employee of the petitioner did not make proper entries in the relevant register and did not credit the said money in the account of the respondent, the petitioner being an employer cannot escape its vicarious liability for the acts of its employees.  It is apparent that similar revision petition relating to issuance of bank receipts on deposit by the account holder and thereafter not crediting the said amount in the account of the account holder by its employee, had been dealt with by this Commission wherein this Commission in the matter of Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Hari Ram Yadav in Revision Petition No. 1923 of 2015 decided on 12.08.2015 concluded that bank cannot escape its vicarious liability for the acts of its employees even if FIR for embezzlement, commission of fraud had been filed by the petitioner bank and this Commission had found the said revision petition frivolous and while dismissing the said  revision petition, imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Despite such finding of this Commission, the petitioner had endeavoured to file this frivolous revision petition.  Therefore, while dismissing the present revision petition, I impose cost of Rs.20,000/- on the bank.  This cost shall be paid by the petitioner bank within four weeks from the date of this order to the complainant by way of demand draft failing which complainant is free to file the execution petition for recovery and in that case, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% on this amount from the date of filing of execution petition till its realization.

Revision Petition stands disposed of .