SRI S. COARI, MEMBER.

No. 5/30.06.2010.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the D.C.D.R.F., North 24 Pgs, Barasat in DF Case No. 185/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint against the O.P. with cost.  The O.P. – Bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 26.09.2007 till the date of realization along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the Bank to the Complainant.

The Complainant – Respondent’s case before the Ld. District Forum in brief was that the Complainant deposited the sale proceeds of her ancestral property amounting to Rs.14,00,000/- with the State Bank of India Shillong Branch for the purpose of opening Special Term Deposit.  Thereafter, the Complainant made an application to the SBI, Shillong Branch with a request to transfer the aforesaid STDR to SBI, Barasat Branch.  It is the specific case of Complainant that the Complainant made contact with O.P. No. 2 who happens to be an officer of the State Bank to arrange a loan for Rs.5,00,000/- against the same fixed deposit.  According to the Complainant, the Complainant was requested to sign a blank cheque in favour of O.P. No. 2 so as to accommodate the withdrawal of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for disbursing them to the Complainant.  Subsequently when the Complainant asked for the amount from O.P. No. 2 she was informed that before the expiry of six months the amount could not be withdrawn from the Special Term Deposit.  However, in spite of repeated requests the aforementioned blank cheque duly signed by the Complainant was never returned to the Complainant by the O.P. No. 2.  It is the further case of the Complainant that on the advice of the O.P. No. 3 i.e. Manager of State Bank of India, Barasat the Complainant withdrew some money from her current account which the Complainant never intended to open.  The O.P. issued a cheque book in respect of the aforesaid current account thereby enabling the Complainant to withdraw money from time to time including a sum of Rs.5,81,160/- to meet the requirement to fund the purchase of one residential flat.  Subsequently the Complainant intending not to have bank transactions with the O.Ps expressed her desire to close the account and the same accordingly closed after observing requisite and attending formalities.  Thereafter on receipt of statement of account from the aforesaid bank it came to light that a huge amount has been siphoned out from the Account of the Complainant beyond her knowledge.  The Statement of Account show withdrawal of money at different time which, according to the Complainant she never withdrew.  Due to such unwarranted transactions at the instance of the O.P. – Bank the Complainant has suffered monetary loss and being aggrieved with such deficiency in service at the instance of the O.P. the Complainant was compelled to institute the complaint case for proper redressal.

O.P. No. 2 contested the case by filing Written Version thereby denying all the materials averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the Complainant has instituted the case on false and fictitious grounds.  There was no basis for instituting the petition of complaint.  The allegations were baseless without any foundation at all and the same was liable to be dismissed with cost.

O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 – Bank contested the case by filing a separate Written Version thereby denying all the material averments and contending inter alia that the Complainant was sanctioned overdraft facilities which the Complainant availed of against lien of her Special Term Deposit and the Current Account was opened in her name with separate passbook facilities at the behest of the Complainant.   None else but the Complainant made several transactions in that account and withdrew money by issuing cheques from the cheque book issued in her favour.  There was no misappropriation of fund from the account of the Complainant and that the Complainant having filed petition of complaint on baseless and false allegations the same was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of petition of complaint has observed that there were materials on record for a presumption that the O.P. No. 2 who happened to be an officer of the O.P. – Bank misappropriated some amount of money from the account of the Complainant and the Bank cannot avoid the responsibility thereof as in as much as the Bank is very much responsible for the misappropriation caused at the instance of its employee and accordingly dispose of the case in favour of the Complainant as mentioned above.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such finding of the Ld. District Forum the O.P. – Bank has instituted the present appeal.  The only moot question that revolves round in the present appeal as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing petition of the complaint in the manner discussed above.

DECISIONS WITH REASON :

At the time of hearing it was submitted on behalf of the Appellant – Bank that in this case Ld. District Forum has utterly failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law.  According to Ld. Advocate for the Appellant the Appellant is armed with adequate and sufficient materials so as to prove that no amount of money was misappropriated or siphoned out from the Account of the Complainant as alleged by her.  It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that the entire transaction which took place in between the Bank and the Complainant has been adequately and properly reconciled and as such there is no scope on the part of the Complainant to complain about misappropriation or siphoning out of a huge amount of money from her account.  It is further being submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Complainant withdrew from her account sufficient amount of money at different point of time through issuance of cheques from the cheque book issued in her favour by the Bank.  While elaborating on this point Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has further submitted before us that even if it is accepted that the officer of the bank was on the wrong foot in the matter to transacting with the money of the Complainant but the same was beyond the knowledge of the Appellant – Bank and also outside the scope of adjudication of the present matter.  It should be treated as extraneous transactions between the Complainant and the said officer of the bank who has already expired.  While concluding his submission the Ld. Advocate for the Bank has submitted before us that in the absence of any positive and cogent material on record it was not proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to take an adverse view against the Appellant – Bank.  The impugned judgement being not supported by attending circumstances and conduct of the parties as it would be evident from the transactions thereof there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to pass the impugned judgment to the detriment and to the interest of the Appellant – Bank and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside and the appeal should be allowed.

We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Appellant – Bank and have also gone through the materials on record, pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find in this case that Complainant’ has tried to put forward a case to the effect that one of the officers of the Bank taking advantage of the situation has misappropriated a huge amount of money from the account of the Complainant and that the Appellant bank had a role to play which is against the interest of the Complainant.  The Appellant – Bank on the other hand has tried to put up a case to the effect that the Bank was never responsible for the alleged misappropriation of the money at the instance of the O.P. No. 2 who happened to be an employee of the Bank since deceased and whatever transaction took place between the Complainant and the said deceased employee of the Bank should be treated as extraneous matter not being concerned to the present dispute.  The statement of account relied upon depicts actual state of affairs and in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in respect of the Complainant’s case the complaint ought to have been dismissed.

On careful scrutiny of the impugned judgement we find that Ld. District Forum has rightly appreciated the case of respective parties.  In this regard we find much substance in the view adopted by the Ld. District Forum wherein Ld. District Forum has observed that the O.P. No. 2 being an employee of the Appellant – Bank had some nasty role in the matter of siphoning out a substantial amount of money from the account of the Complainant.  In this regard we also take note of the fact that the Appellant – Bank has tried to wash out its hand by taking a plea that those transactions are extraneous matter being not related with the present controversy between the parties.  We are unable to accept such proposition in as much as the Bank should be and always responsible for the misdeeds of its employees.  On further scrutiny of the impugned judgement we also take note of the fact that Ld. District Forum has scrutinized nitty-gritty of the respective parties and has arrived at a just and proper decision and considering the present appeal in the light of the above observation we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum which accordingly stands confirmed.

In the result hence it is ordered,

                                  that the appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.