PER HON’BLE M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

For the reasons cited in the Affidavit the delay of 48 days in filing the Revision Petition No. 1686 of 2018 is sufficiently explained and is condoned.

2.       As all three Revision Petitions are arising out of the common order, the same are being disposed of by this common order.     

3.       Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short “the Act”) is to the common order dated 16.01.2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short “the State Commission”) in Appeal Nos. 900 901 and 917 of 2014, preferred by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Manuj Gupta, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank and Postal Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partially allowed the Appeals preferred by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) and also the Postal Department directing all the respondents in the main petition jointly and severally to pay an amount of ₹13,45,000/- together with interest awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Jaipur (in short “the District Forum”) and also the compensation of ₹4,50,000/-. The State Commission has set aside the amount of ₹2,00,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

4.       The facts in brief are that the Complainants, in the year 2003, invested an amount of ₹11,00,000/- with the Postal Department’s Saving Scheme, which is detailed as hereunder:

5.       After the completion of the maturity period, in the year 2006, the Complainant approached the officials of the Postal Department. Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal, the Agent, arrayed as third Opposite Party in the main Complaint (hereinafter referred to as “the Agent”), advised the Complainants to re-invest the amount for another period of 5 years. Once again, the amount of ₹13,45,000/- was re-invested and the entries were made in the passbook, the maturity period being 2011. The details of the re-invested amounts are detailed as hereunder:

6.       Subsequently, when the Complainants approached the Postal Department, it was found that all the passbooks were forged and the money, which was invested in the Postal Department was already paid in the year 2007 and on inquiry, it was found that cheques were issued to a third party by opening an account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. It is averred that the Bank opened the savings account without verifying details and further the account payee cheques issued in the name of the Complainants were cleared without proper verification. Two cheques were issued in the name of Shri Pritam Singh Narang by Jawahar Nagar Post Office and two cheques were issued in the name of Mahendra Kaur Narang, who is a lady, but Bank did not chose to verify, though the account was opened in the name of Mahendra Kumar Narang, a man. The Complainants had to come from America to India in the month of January 2011 to file the present Complaint seeking the following reliefs:

1. “That the Opposite Parties be directed to pay the maturity amount of ₹18,03,680/-, which was due in June, 2011 along with interest at the prevailing market rate till the date of decision.

2. That the Opposite Parties be directed to pay ₹1,00,000/- towards expenses incurred by the Complainants for to and fro from America.

3. That the Opposite Parties be directed to pay ₹50,000/- towards mental agony suffered.

4. That the Opposite Parties be directed to pay ₹11,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5. That this Hon’ble Court may also pass such other reliefs as deem fit.”

    

7.       The Postal Department filed their Written Version admitting that the amounts were deposited by the Complainants in the year 2003 for a period of 3 years in Jawahar Nagar, Main Post Office, Jaipur but denied that the same was re-invested in the post office. It is averred that as per the Department Rules a new account is opened for re-investing the amount of the depositors, and new numbers  are allocated for different category of persons. It is stated that the fraud of issuance of fake passbook was perhaps committed by the Agent and that the Postal Department cannot be held liable. It is averred that one Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal, had collected the cheques and opened an account in the names of the Complainants in the Bank and withdrew the amount by depositing the said cheques  and therefore it is the Bank, who is liable for allowing the withdrawal and not the Postal Department. It is pleaded that the Department had paid the Complainants’ maturity amount to the person, who has acted on their behalf i.e. Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal and therefore, there could not be any deficiency of service on their behalf. It was also stated that Union of India was not made party, which is bad in non-joinder of the parties.

8.       The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 7 to jointly and individually pay the amount of ₹13,45,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01.07.2006 till the date of realization and the Postal Department  to pay compensation of ₹2,50,000/-, the Agent to pay ₹1,00,000/-, the Bank to pay ₹2,50,000/- and Opposite Party  No. 7 to pay an amount of ₹55,000/- total amounting to ₹6,55,000/-, out of which ₹4,55,000/- was to be paid to the Complainants and the balance is to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund.

9.       To reiterate, the State Commission has modified the order of the State Commission by setting aside the order of depositing an amount of ₹2,00,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund, while confirming the direction to pay ₹13,45,000 with interest @12% p.a. and ₹4,55,000/- jointly and severally.

10.     The Learned counsel appearing for the Postal Department in Revision Petition No. 1111 of 2018 submitted that no deficiency of service can be attributed to the Postal Department as amounts have already been paid to one Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal, who has come to receive the maturity amount in connivance with the Agent, Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal, who was acting on behalf of the Complainants. It is further submitted that when the signatures could not be matched, Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal  was identified as their agent and thereafter an amount of ₹13,45,000/- was paid through account payee cross cheques in the name of Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 on 04.05.2007. Thereafter the Complainants never approached the Department either for the maturity amount or for the re-investment.

11.     It is the case of the Bank that the State Commission has awarded compensation leading to undue enrichment of the Complainants and even if assuming without admitting there has been any deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank, their liability ought to have been restricted to 1/3^rd of the total amount awarded by the State Commission. In Revision Petition No. 1686 of 2018 filed by the Bank, none of the grounds specifically refer to the KYC being adhered to or if any stringent steps were taken for verifying the persons attempting to open the savings bank account in their branch. The only contention of the Bank appears to be that the compensation awarded by the State Commission, is ‘windfall compensation’ and also that their liability cannot be joint and several and should be appropriately apportioned.

12.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, who is the Agent in Revision Petition No. 1197 of 2019 contended that there is no evidence of any misappropriation by the Agent. Learned Counsel also filed an order copy of the Court of Special Judge (CBI) No. 3, Jaipur, and Rajasthan in Special Criminal Case No. 19 of 2017, to substantiate her.

13.     The admitted facts are that the Complainants had deposited an amount of ₹11,00,000/- as a fixed deposit with the Postal Department in the year 2003 for a period of 3 years, the maturity date being 2006. It is the Complainants case that they had again reinvested an amount of ₹13,45,000/- for another period of 5 years, on the advise of the Agent and the passbooks were also issued. It is also not in dispute that the amounts were paid by cheques on 04.05.2007 by the Postal Department to Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal, Postal Department contends is the messenger of the Complainants. A perusal of the material on record does not show any such authorization letter authorizing  Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal to take any action on behalf of the Complainants. In the absence of any authorization letter, the stand of the Postal Department that the amount was rightly paid to Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal has no legs to stand. The Postal Department ought to have exhibited due care and caution, and adhered to the rules when such a large amount was being paid. We do not find any illegality in the finding of the State Commission that there was utter negligence on behalf of the Postal Department in handing over the cheques to the husband of the Agent, who had no authorization letter.

14.     A charge sheet was filed against Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal and on an investigation done it was found that for opening the account of Mahendra Kaur Narang, the driving license of Lokesh Kaur Jangid was used and for opening an account of Mr. Pritam Singh Narang, the driving license of Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal was used. The Photographs of Vijay Garg and Tarun Gupta were affixed on the account opening form, which clearly shows that the Bank officials did not adhere to normal practices as stipulated by RBI under KYC norms to verify the persons opening the accounts. Further, it is also observed that the cheques issued by the Postal Department was in the name of Smt. Mahendra Kaur Narang, a woman and the same was allowed to be deposited in the account of Shri Mahendra Kumar Narang, which act is absolutely negligent on behalf of the Bank officials. The amount deposited was withdrawn by Mr. Rakesh Bakliwal and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Jangid vide six cheques and the Bank had once again allowed the withdrawal without proper verification of the signatures on the cheques. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank that the compensation awarded by the State Commission amounts to ‘windfall compensation’. We do not find any undue enrichment to the Complainants taking into consideration that the amount of ₹4,55,000/- awarded by the State Commission is to be paid jointly and severally by the Postal Department, the Bank and the Agent for the negligence  committed by them. The mental agony and the tireless efforts made by the Complainants to trace the amount cannot be undermined. Though, we are of the view that the State Commission has rightly set aside the ₹2,00,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund, we do not see any substantial grounds either to revise the compensation or to apportion the liability, as prayed for by the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, when liability is joint and several and negligence on behalf of the Bank has been proved beyond doubt.

15.     It is relevant to mention that the learned Counsel appearing for the Agent has filed an order of the Special CBI Court, Jaipur stating that it has acquitted the Agent. But the order filed before us does not mention the names of the Complainants herein. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the documentary evidence on record showing the fraud committed by the Agent and her husband in opening accounts in the Bank and misappropriating the Complainants hard earned money, we see no grounds to interfere with the order of the State Commission with respect to this Petitioner herein.

16.     For all the aforenoted reasons, all the three Revision Petitions are dismissed without cost.