Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1079/2012

Naresh Kumar S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab And Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Karam Singh

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1079 of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of Instt. 05.10.2012

                                                                                                Date of Decision:12.06.2017.

 

1. Naresh Kumar aged about 45 years son of Shri Om Parkash,
2. Bhupinder Kumar aged 36 years son of Late of Sh. Om Parkash.
3. Bala Devi aged about 75 years wife of Late Shri Om Parkash

     All residents of village Lawana, P.O. Alipur, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                             ....Complainants

     Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Mustafabad, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. Regional Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, SCO No. 84-91, Sector-17B, Bank Square, Chandigarh. ‘
3. The C.M.D. Punjab & Sind Bank, 21, Rajindera Palace, New Delhi.

 

               ....Respondents

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…………. MEMBER

           

Present:      Sh. Karam Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainants. 

                    Sh. J.S.Anand, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President).

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs Bank).

2.                      Brief facts of the complaint as alleged in the complaint are that the complainants were having three saving accounts bearing No. 7426, 8184 and 8405 with the OP No.1 Bank. One Surjit Singh employee of the bank has withdrawn an amount of Rs. Rs. 2,82,084/- from the account No. 7426 of complainant No.1, Rs. 5624/- from the account No. 8184 of complainant No.2 and Rs. 79,819/- from the account No. 8405 of complainant No.3 by mishandling the accounts of the complainants from 2007 to October, 2010 and had caused a total loss to the tune of Rs. 3,73,527/- beside interest up to date. It has been further mentioned that after coming to know about the fraud and embezzlement committed by the said Surjit Singh with the complainants and Bank, complainants moved applications to all the bank authorities on 17.02.2012 and reminder on dated 06.04.2012 and inspite of receipt of the applications, no action was taken on the applications of the complainants by the said authority nor even bother to reply the same. The complainants received the reply dated 29.05.2012 of their applications from Banking Ombudsman Sector-17B Chandigarh. The corruption/ embezzlement committed by the officials of the Op No.1 Bank came to the notice of Media and News regarding the embezzlement of amounts of people came into light through several newspapers. After that, complainants repeatedly visited the OPs Bank and requested to make good the loss of the complainant caused by said employee but the matter was put off on one pretext or the other. After that, it comes to the notice of the complainants that the said erring official of the bank has been charge sheeted and has been put behind the bars and is in judicial custody. Merely sending an employee in judicial custody does not solve the case of the complainants as the hard earned money of the complainants have been embezzled by the official of the Bank, so, the OP Bank is liable to make good the loss of the complainants by returning the withdrawn amount of Rs. 3,73,527/- but the officials of the OP Bank refused to pay the same which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Bank appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Bank. Moreover, the present complaint has been jointly filed by the three complainants whereas each complainants should have filed separate complaint as their accounts are different and causes of action are also different; complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint; the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and on merit, it has been denied that Surjit Singh employee of the bank has withdrawn the amounts mentioned in the complaint whatever transactions have taken place from the accounts of the complainants, the same have been duly shown in their accounts and were conducted by the complainants themselves. It has been further mentioned that the complainant has not given any date of withdrawal, the amount of withdrawal or deposit of amount, its date etc. No lump sum amount was withdrawn from the accounts of the complainants, the amount have been withdrawn on different dates by the complainants themselves. However, it has been admitted to the extent of receipt of complaints against Surjit Singh. It has been further mentioned that at the relevant time, Sh. K.S. Bedi was the Branch Incharge and not Atam Singh, so, there is no question to contact Atam Singh and this shows that the complainants are making false allegations. No money of complainants have been embezzled by any official of the bank and no official or Manager of the Bank is liable in any manner, as alleged. Neither any accounts of consumers of the bank had been mishandled nor any offence whatsoever has been committed by the bank or its employee. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant Naresh Kumar tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, affidavit of Bhupinder kumar as Annexure CW/B and affidavit of Bala Devi as Annexure CW/C and documents such as photo copy of two pages of pass book of Naresh Kumar bearing account No. 7426 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of one page of pass book bearing account No. 8184 of Bhupinder Kumar as Annexure C-2,  Photo copy of three pages of pass book bearing account No. 5869 of Om Parkash as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of application as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter dated 16.05.2012 sent to the RBI as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of FIR bearing No. 212 dated 31.12.2011 P.S. Chhappar as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of letter of Banking Ombudsman as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of postal receipts as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of letter dated 28.06.2012 sent to DGM RBI as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of newspaper cutting as Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank as Annexure RA and document such as computer generated statement of account bearing No. 8184 of Bhupinder Kumar as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. Counsel for the complainants reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs Bank reiterated the averments made in reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     The only grievances of the complainants are that one Surjit Singh an employee of the Op No.1 Bank has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3,73,527/- by mishandling the accounts of the complainants i.e. Rs. 2,82,084/- from the account bearing No. 7426 of complainant No.1 and Rs. 5624/- from the account No. 8184 of complainant No.2 and Rs. 79,819/- from the account bearing No. 8405 of complainant No.3 from 2007 to October, 2010 and in this way had caused the loss to all the three complainants besides interest on this amount and after coming to know the fraud and embezzlement committed by the said employee the complainant moved applications to the Bank Authorities on 17.02.2012 and after that reminder dated 06.04.2012 but despite that the Ops Bank has not refunded the said amount to the complainants which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Bank. Learned counsel for the complainants draw our attention towards the photo copy of pass books as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and photo copy of FIR Annexure C-7 and complaints made to the RBI, Bank as well as News Paper cutting and argued that from all these documents, it is duly evident that the said employee had embezzled and committed forgery and caused a loss to the complainants and lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops Bank argued at length that a false and fabricated and manipulated complaint has been filed just to extract the money from the Ops Bank. Learned counsel for the OPs Bank further argued that as per version of the complainants themselves the said embezzlement/forgery by withdrawing the amount from the accounts of the complainants had been committed from 2007 to October, 2010 but the present complaint has been filed on 05.10.2012 i.e. after a period of more than 5 years from the year of 2007. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that a lump sum amount has been mentioned in the present complaint whereas no detail of withdrawal of the amount, withdrawal date or the date of deposit of the amount and its date has been disclosed by the complainants in their complaint, even the complainants have failed to file any cogent evidence in this regard.  Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that generally no person can keep mum for such a long period from 2007 to 2012. Every person visits the bank in short intervals as and when required for transactions but it is not possible and digestible that a person did not visit his bank for a period of near about 5 years from 2007 to 2012. Learned counsel for the Ops Bank further argued that complainants have placed on file only photo copy of pass book which is neither duly proved nor has weightage in the eye of law in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Learned counsel for the OPs Bank further draw our attention towards the copy of FIR Annexure C-7 and argued that this FIR has been lodged on behalf of Bank itself against Surjit Singh Peon/Daftri of the Bank at the instance of Zonal Manager, Haryana Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office Sector-17B Chandigarh not by the complainants or any other customer of the bank. Learned counsel for the Ops Bank further argued that no amount as alleged in the complaint by the complainants was withdrawn from the accounts of the complainants but the complainants want to get undue benefits on account of this FIR (Annexure C-7) lodged by the bank against said Surjit Singh only. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that even till today the complainants have never made any complaint to any police authority for embezzlement or withdrawing any amount from their accounts. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Bank as the complainants have totally failed to prove that any official of the OPs Bank has wrongly and illegally withdrawn the amounts from the saving bank accounts bearing No. 7426, 8184 and 8405 of the complainants. Mere placing on file only photo copies of pass book, it cannot be presumed that any fraud or any embezzlement was committed by the said employee of the OPs Bank with the complainants. Further, the complainants have not impleaded the said employee as party in the present complaint. Further, we have gone through the contents of the FIR (Annexure C-7) but in that FIR also, the name of the complainants has not been mentioned. The complainants have totally failed to place on file any application or complaint made to any police authority to investigate the matter regarding their bank accounts. The photo copies of pass book placed on file (Annexure C-1 to C-4) are not duly proved as neither any witness has been summoned from the concerned bank to prove the same nor any account statement duly attested/issued by the OPs Bank has been placed on file to prove that on what date and month and year and how much money was withdrawn from the accounts of the complainants and how much amount was deposited by the complainants on what date and month. On the other angle also, this fact cannot be overlooked that as per version of the complainants themselves, the said embezzlement or fraud was committed by the said employee from 2007 to October, 2010 but the present complaint has been filed in the year October, 2012 but no explanation has been given by the complainants in their complaint that why they kept mum for a such long period from 2007 to 2012. Generally every person visits the bank at intervals for daily need of the money or to deposit the amount, so the version of the complainants that they came to know about the fraud in the year 2012 only is not digestible. Further, the complainants have admitted in their complaint that a fraud and forgery has been committed with them, so on this point also elaborate evidence is required i.e. cross examination of the witnesses, expert opinion regarding the signatures of the erring officials/parties and what was the mode of withdrawal of the said alleged amount etc. and the same cannot be decided in a summary way before the Forum. The same view has been held in case titled as Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1997(2) CPR page 187 wherein it has been held that “forgery and fraud- are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as to fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts”. Further the same view has been held in case titled as Lala Samachar Newspaper Vs. General Manager, Telephone, 1997(1) CPJ Page 94 wherein it has been mentioned that “Forgery- Investigation of-Held that For a cannot investigate into allegations of forgery etc”.  

            The same view has been held in case titled as Mohinder Singh Nirvaan Vs. Sukhvinderjeet Singh & Others, 2016(4) CLT page 197 (PB) wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17- Misappropriation- Plea of complainant that OP has mis-appropriated their earnest money- Held- It is a case of embezzlement/misappropriation then the appropriate Forum is Civil Court, not the Consumer For a- Complaint dismissed being not maintainable- The complainant do not fall within the definition of consumer and there are allegations of mis-appropriation, which can appropriately be dealt by appropriate Civil Court.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and going through the case law referred above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainants are liberty to approach the Civil Court or Appropriate Authority for redressal of their grievances, if so advised. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.12.06.2017.

 

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT  

                                                   DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR                                                                                                                                                                              

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)          (S.C.SHARMA)

                        MEMBER                                             MEMBER