DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been directed against order dated 02.06.2015 in CC No. 21/2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas (for short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the case has been allowed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.
The case of the Complainant is that she is a senior citizen and unmarried helpless lady and retired pensionholder, having Savings Bank Account No. 07330100005033 with the OP, where she deposited her whole life’s earning of Rs.32,96,638/- But, when she updated her Savings Bank Pass Book, she came to know that an amount of Rs.18,60,500/-was siphoned off/embezzled through fraudulent withdrawal from her said Savings Bank Account vide cheques bearing Nos. 993687 dated 27.09.2014 of Rs.2,75,500/- and 993684 dated 17.10.2014 of Rs.15,85,000/- in cash and paid to one Surendra Kumar Das, respectively. The original cheque book containing 20 leaves of CTS 2010, cheque of ABC/314 series bearing nos. 993681 – 993700 which is under her custody and has never been issued/ used, including the two cheques of ABC/314 series bearing nos. 993687 and 993684. She immediately informed the above facts to the OP on 11.11.2014 and categorically mentioned that the above mentioned cheques are in her possession, and requested the OP to refund the total amount of Rs.18,60,500/- to her Account, but the OP did not pay any heed. Thereafter, she informed the above facts to the Chairman & Managing Director of the OP Bank vide mail dated 12.11.2014, but without any result. Accordingly, she lodged a diary with Dum Dum PS on 11.11.2014 vide G.D. Entry No. 1106, which has been converted to FIR being Dum Dum PS Case No.979/2014 dated 13.11.2014, u/s 420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending. The cheque Book was shown to the OP Bank officials, namely Vigilance Officer, Inspecting Officer from Zonal Office, Branch Manager, when they came to her residence on 14.11.2014 for the purpose of investigation. But, the said amount of Rs.18,60,500/- has not been credited to her Account, causing her mental agony and anxiety, which is adversely affecting her health. She again visited the OP on 22.11.2014 with demand for redressal of her grievances and for refund of the amount of Rs.18,60,500/-. She again gave a reminder to the OP on 04.12.2014 addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director, with copy to the OP for getting her money back, but without any favourable response. So, she served a legal notice through Sri Shankar Patra, Ld. Advocate to the OP dated 29.12.2014, but without any response. Accordingly, the case.
Per contra, the case of the OP is that the petition of complaint is motivated, intentional and frivolous. A cheque book having no. 993681 – 993700 was issued to her on 12.03.2014. The bank authority could not hold any enquiry into the factual questions as she lodged complaint on 13.11.2014 before Dum Dum PS, who initiated the case u/s 420/406/506 of IPC and for this purpose, the police already seized statement of A/c of the Complainant, Specimen Signature Card, A/c Opening Form of the Complainant, Disputed Cheques, Video footage of CCTV, and the matter is sub judice. Accordingly, the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of irregularity and/or illegality so as to make an intervention therein.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that out of the two amounts, Rs.2,75,500/- was disbursed in cash being bearer cheque and in respect of Rs.15,85,000/- , it was an A/c payee cheque and paid to the payee, and the bank had no responsibility in the matter. The Complainant herself made FIR in the matter and the police seized all the relevant documents. Not only the Complainant but two other women are joint holders of the said SB Account, but they are not party in case and there is no power of attorney of the others. So, the Complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint case. Further, Canara Bank was also not impleaded as OP in the matter, where the sum of Rs.15,85,000/- was credited in the Account of one Surendra Kumar Das, who is also not a party. Thus, the case suffers from defect of parties. He has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (i) CPR 469 (NC), where it was stipulated that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof require elaborate evidence, same can not be decided by the Consumer Fora.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the involvement and complicity of the Bank concerned is very much apparent. The complaint is clearly proved by the fact of possessing the full 20 leaf cheque book by the Complainant being Nos.993681- 993700 of ABC/314 series vide Account No. 07330100005033, and all such cheques were seized by the police are blank. It is clear that those two cheques in question originated from the Bank with separate series, without request of the Complainant formally for another set of cheque book, who has previous unused cheque book. The OP did not mention the series number of the cheque book issued to the Complainant in the w.v. intentionally, though the same has been mentioned in the relevant portion of the petition of complaint. The OP also did not dispute with the fact that the cheque book was shown by the Complainant to the Bank official, namely, Vigilance Officer, Inspecting Officer from Zonal Office and Branch Manager, when they came to her residence on 14.11.2014 for the purpose of investigation. The w.v. is an example of evasiveness to shift the liability. The money in question is related to a retired unmarried lady and bank being the custodian can not bypass its liability. The Branch Manager at the relevant time and other unscrupulous officials of the Bank involved in the transactions should have been suspended and booked by the hierarchy of the Bank, at the first instance. It is a massive pilferage of money of a hapless lady by the concerned Bank. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs State Bank of India, dated 30.01.2004, Citation : 2004 LawSuit (SC) 110, in which it was pointed out that the 1st Respondent Bank had not discharged the burden which was laid on it to show that it had acted in good faith and without negligence. He has also referred to another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2008) CPJ 31 (NC), where it was held that the amount disbursed to third party without verification of signature of depositor, or doubting/suspecting as to why no cheque used, when whole amount lying in account being transferred in one go. It was held that a fraud was committed by the Branch Manager in collusion with others and large amount misappropriated by unauthorised transfer. So, the Bank is liable to reimburse the amount with interest and also compensation granted.
First and foremost in that the w.v. in question is half-hearted case of the OP. It did not bring out the skeleton in the cupboard. How, why and who issued those two cheques, which are highly confidential in nature to some unscrupulous person ? The Bank failed to give any hint to it in the w.v. Any act of omission and commission naturally falls on the shoulders and the burden of the Branch Manager, as the staff work under him and at his instruction and command. There is, without any doubt a large scale siphoning of money from the SB A/c of a retired unmarried lady and the Bank can not shift the liability. In fact, those unscrupulous officials of the Bank acted in unison in order to defraud the Complainant, as they found her in hapless condition being unmarried, retired and old lady. There is no anomaly as such in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum concerned by which the OP Bank has been directed to deposit Rs.18,60,500/- in favour of Complainant in her account with 12% interest per annum from filing of the case till payment within one month from the date of the order. But, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/-.The other stipulation of punitive damages of Rs.500/- per month is struck down. Other portion of the impugned order do stand. However, the competent authority of the UCO Bank is at liberty to take back such amount from the salary of those responsible persons. The impugned order is thus modified. Appeal stands partly allowed.
Let a copy of this order along with the LCR be forwarded to the Ld. District Forum forthwith.
