Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/901/2016

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.through its Chief Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pritam Singh Narang s/o Mahendra Singh Narang throughn Power of Attorney Holder Virendra Singh S/O M - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Tantia

16 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 901/2016

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 817, Ambadeep Building, 14 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through Chief Manager & ors.

Vs.

Pritam Singh Narang s/o Mahendra Singh Narang r/o 62, Central Islip Newyork-11722 through Power of Attorney holder Sh.Virendra Singh s/oMahendra Singh Narang r/o 460/4 Vashishth Marg, Raja Park,Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 900/2016

 

Manuj Gupta Br.Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Branch Krishan Tower, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur.

Vs.

Pritam Singh Narang s/o Mahendra Singh Narang r/o 62, Central Islip Newyork-11722 through Power of Attorney holder Sh.Virendra Singh s/oMahendra Singh Narang r/o 460/4 Vashishth Marg, Raja Park,Jaipur & ors.

 

2

FIRST APPTAL NO: 917/2016

 

Postal Department, Jaipur (Raj.) General Post Office, M.I.Road, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Pritam Singh Narang s/o Mahendra Singh Narang r/o 62, Central Islip Newyork-11722 through Power of Attorney holder Sh.Virendra Singh s/oMahendra Singh Narang r/o 460/4 Vashishth Marg, Raja Park,Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 16.1.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Manish Sharma counsel for the complainant Pritam Singh

Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka counsel for Postal Department

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia counsel for Kotak Mahindra Bank and Manuj Gupta

Mr.Rajesh Jain counsel for Ranjana Bakliwal

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

3

 

All these appeals are preferred against single order hence are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the Kotak Mahindra Bank is that there is no privity of contract between the consumer and the bank. The accounts were opened after having requisite documents and procedure and Manuj Gupta has stated that he cannot be made liable as he was not posted in the bank at the particular time.

 

The contention of the post office is that they have paid the amount to the representative of the complainant and no deficiency is committed by him.

 

Per contra the contention of the complainant is that the appellants were rightly been held deficient and no interference is needed.

 

The contention of the agent Ranjana Bakliwal is that she is not deficient and money has not been paid to her.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the

4

 

impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The facts of the case goes to show that the complainant deposited Rs. 11 lakhs with the postal department in 2003. On maturity the respondent no. 3 was directed to re-investment it and the total amount was Rs. 13,45,000/-. Pass books were also handed over to the complainant by respondent no.3 in which the maturity was shown as year 2011. In the meanwhile when the complainant went to the postal department it was found that the passbooks are forged one and money which was invested with the postal department is already paid in 2007 and on inquiry it was found that the cheques were issued to the other person and after opening account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank the amount was withdrawn. Hence, the claim is preferred against the present appellant and Ranjana Bakliwal who was the agent at the particular time.

 

The contention of the present appellants before the Forum below was that they are not deficient and if any forgery and offence is committed they cannot be held liable. The Forum below has allowed the claim against all the respondents

 

5

 

and further more for mental and physical agony and cost of proceedings compensation is also been awarded.

 

The contention of the complainant before the Forum below was that they deposited the amount with the postmaster which is evident from Anx. 2 to 5 and pass books Ex. 6 to 9 are also been placed on record. Thereafter the amount was directed to be re-investment and pass books were issued to the complainant Anx. 10 to 14 and pass books clearly shows that the amount was re-invested in June 2006 and maturity date was five years but Anx. 15 to 18 clearly shows that the amount was paid by way of cheques on 4.5.2007 and payment details were also been submitted as Ex.19 to 22. This clearly shows that the amount was deposited for five years but without any instructions of the complainant it was paid earlier and contention of the appellants post office is that the amount was paid to Rakesh Bakliwal who was the messenger of the complainant but no such authority letter is placed on record which could justify the action of the post office for payment of the amount to Rakesh Bakliwal and it may be noted that Rakesh Bakliwal is husband of the agent Ranjana Bakliwal to

 

6

 

whom money was paid for re-investment of the amount. This shows the deficiency on the part of the postal department that amount was paid to the unauthorized person and that too prior to the date of maturity.

 

The contention of the postal department is that they have paid the amount hence, they have not committed any deficiency. It is true that the amount was paid to the person Rakesh Bakliwal but there is no document to the effect that he was the representative of the complainant. Hence, it could very well be concluded that the postal department has perpetuated the mischief and thereafter whole scam is being done.

 

The Forum below has rightly held that the appellants postal department are deficient. Ranjana Bakliwal has accepted the amount on behalf of the complainant and instead of re-investing it she has misappropriated the same. Hence, the appeal preferred by the postal department has no merit.

 

The contention of the bank is that they are not deficient and further more they are not having any privity of contract with the consumer but this contention has no force as the

7

 

contention of the bank is that they have opened the account in the name of Pritam Singh Narang and Mahendra Kaur Narang and when the contention of the bank is that both the complainants are their account holders by necessary implication they are consumers.

 

The contention of the appellant bank is that they are not deficient as the accounts have been opened with due diligence but this contention is not supported by any of the documents. It is admitted case of the parties that charge sheet is filed against Rakesh Bakliwal and others wherein it has been investigated and found that for opening of account of Mahendra Kaur Narang driving licence of Lokesh Kumar Jangid and for opening of account of Pritam Singh Narang the driving licence of Rakesh Bakliwal was used and even the photographs of Vijay Garg and Tarun Gupta were affixed on the account opening from which clearly shows the deficiency on the part of the bank officials and further more it may be noted that the cheque issued by the postal department were in the name of Smt.Mahendra Kaur Narang whereas it was allowed to be deposited in the account of Sh.Mahendra Kumar Narang which is deficiency on the face of it and it has also

8

been investigate and found that amount so deposited was withdrawn by Rakesh Bakliwal and Lokesh Kumar Jangid vide six cheques and the bank has allowed the withdrawal without verifying the signatures on the cheque and the Forum below has rightly held the appellants deficient.

Appellant Manuj Gupta has not submitted any document which could show that he was not posted there at the relevant time.

The contention of the bank is that complainants have not entered into evidence and affidavit of power of attorney holder is only submitted. It is true that affidavit of Virendra Singh Narang, power of attorney holder of the complainant is submitted. It may be noted that complaint was filed through power of attorney holder as the complainants are residing in New York and Virendra Singh Narang has testify that all facts are in his knowledge and he sworn the affidavit by his personal knowledge. Hence, there seems to be no infirmity in filing the complaint through power of attorney holder and when power of attorney holder is well versed with the facts he is competent witness.

The appellants have further contended that compensation is apportioned between the parties without any rational. The Forum below has awarded compensation as per

9

 

the nature of deficiency but looking at the fact that award of Rs. 13,45,000/- is allowed against the parties jointly and severally it is appropriate to pass the award of compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- as jointly and severally against all the respondents in the main petition. Order of apportionment is set aside.

 

The further contention of the appellants is that they have already been penalized sufficiently hence, order of deposit of Rs.2 lakhs in consumer welfare fund be set aside. Complainant is compensated fairly and reasonably hence, award of Rs. 2 lakhs to deposit in consumer welfare fund is liable to be aside.

 

Hence, all the appeals are partially allowed in the manner that award of Rs. 13,45,000/- alongwith interest is confirmed and amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- is amended as mentioned above. The award of Rs. 2 lakhs for deposit in consumer welfare fund is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm