14-09-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

Heard the parties.

2.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 45 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

3.       Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps.-  appellants (Bank for short) assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Whereas learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – complainant supported it.

4.       The present complaint case was filed against Bank for a direction  to pay Rs. 80,500/- illegally withdrawn from the Savings Bank Account with interest, besides compensation of Rs. 13,500/- and litigation cost Rs. 5,000/-

5.       The complainant’s case in short is as follows. He is an account holder of the Bank. A Pass Book was issued to him in which all the entries of deposit and withdrawal used to be recorded by the Bank employees. On 14.06.2008 there was a balance of Rs. 80,500/- but on 04.10.2008 when he submitted a withdrawal form for drawing Rs. 10,000/- he was told that there was only a balance of Rs. 830/-. On that day itself, he made a complaint about the same. After some days he was informed that the said withdrawal was illegally done by the Bank employees, from his account, as well as from some other accounts, regarding which an FIR was lodged against concerned Bank employees and they were in jail custody. He was further informed that the cheques and the withdrawal form had been sent to expert through S.P. Koderma for verification of signature etc. and after receipt of the report, further action will be taken. The complainant prayed for updating his Pass Book but the Bank refused to do so. Then he obtained some informations under Right to Information Act. He obtained photocopy of ledger of his Saving Bank Account, from perusal of which, he was surprised to see the differences in the entries made in his Pass Book and the photocopy of the ledger regarding the amounts withdrawn. Thus, he alleged that there was clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

6.       The appellants contested the case. According to them Rs. 80,500/- was the balance on 27.06.2007 and not on 14.06.2008, and on 30.05.2008 the balance was Rs. 830/-.There was withdrawal of Rs. 85,000/- on 18.12.2007 from the account of the complainant, through withdrawal slip. On the basis of the written complaint dated 04.10.2008 made by the complainant, investigation was made. The signatures and thumb impressions on the withdrawal slips have been sent to the C.I.D. Laboratory, Patna. An FIR was also lodged against the Bank employees who had made the defalcation and they were in jail custody. It was lastly said that on the receipt of the expert report, payment will be made to the complainant.

7.       The parties led oral and documentary evidence. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the entire materials available on record interalia held as follows.  As per the Pass Book of the complainant, the balance amount as on 14.06.2008 was Rs. 80,500/- but as per the copy of Bank’s original ledger, there was withdrawal of Rs. 85,000/- on 18.12.2007. Such withdrawal was made without Pass Book, although it was clearly written in the withdrawal slip “Pass Book must accompany with this withdrawal form”. Thus, no withdrawal could be made without Pass Book. The entries in the ledge were tampered. Bank Pass Book is an authentic document for an account holder. The Bank ledger is Bank record. The Pass Book is a copy of customer’s ledger account. From perusal of the record, admittedly there was defalcation done by the Bank officials/staffs who were facing trial in criminal court. In such circumstances the complainant should not suffer. The alleged withdrawal made on 18.12.2007 was not entered in the Pass Book, which was updated up to 14.06.2008. There is an element of trust between the Bank and the customer. It was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of                         O.P -2 – appellant -2.  Accordingly, it directed appellant -2 to pay Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant with savings bank interest with effect from filing of the case i.e. 19.05.2009 till the date of payment, along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- litigation cost, within 45 days, failing which, the complainant would be entitled realize the same through process of law.

8.       A copy of the Bank ledger has been brought on the record by the complainant which clearly shows cutting, over writing and interpolation, apparently made by the Bank employees. The Pass Book is a copy of the customers’ ledger. It is not disputed that in the Pass Book updated up to 14.06.2008 no withdrawal of 85,000/- on 18.12.2007 was shown. It also appears that at the time of withdrawal, Pass Book must accompany the withdrawal form, but the disputed withdrawal was made without Pass Book. In the circumstances, it is rightly held by the learned District Forum that clearly there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. It also appears that on similar complaints made by several accounts holders, some Bank officials/ staffs were put on trial.

9.       At this juncture Mr. M.K. Roy appearing for the Bank, submitted that the payment as per the impugned judgment, should be subject to the result of the criminal case.

           In my opinion, the scope of a Criminal Case and the scope of a case under the Consumer Protection Act, is quite different. Apparently, there has been serious deficiency on the part of the Bank. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to make such order.

10.     In the result, both the appellants are directed to comply with the impugned judgment within 45 days of this order, failing which, the Bank will be liable to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint case i.e. 19.5.2009 till the date of payment /realization, besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.

          In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mrs. Sumedha Tripathi.  After the order was dictated with her consent, she informed that she would be absent for her treatment, and she is not sure when she will be available. Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors and the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

             Ranchi,

     Dated: 14-09-2015