Order No. 22 dt. 26/02/2020
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an account holder known as PIGMY Account being a recurring deposit account with the o.p. no.1. The complainant opened the said account in the month of February,2010 and started deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and the stipulated period was of 5 years. After the expiry of the said period the complainant could have received the amount deposited by him along with the interest accrued thereon. The amount was collected from the complainant by the o.p. no.3 against receipts were issued under the seal of o.p. no.1. The complainant made a total deposit of Rs.3,05,000/- in 61 installments and after the expiry of stipulated period complainant went to o.p. bank for getting back the amount but he was informed that the amount lying in the account was Rs.1,92,000/- instead of the principal amount of Rs.3,05,000/-. The complainant thereafter sent a letter asking for the refund of the amount but no fruitful result was achieved. It has also been averred by the complainant that the o.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and equally liable for the act of the o.p. no.3, it is their vicarious liability to pay the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest accrued thereon. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 for refund of the entire amount of Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest plus compensation of Rs.1 Lakh and litigation cost.
The o.p. nos. 1 and 2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was specifically denied that o.p. no.3 is an employee of the o.p. no.1 and he was only a PIGMY agent of the o.p. no.1. The total amount deposited in the books of the bank was of Rs.1,92,000/- and not Rs.3,05,000/- as claimed by the complainant. None of the receipts marked as Annexure-A bears the signature of the branch manager. It has been specifically stated that bank has received a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- not Rs.3,05,000/-. The complainant is put to strict proof that he deposited the amount in the bank of Rs.3,05,000/-. The o.ps also denied the allegation of carelessness of casual treatment with regard to providing customer service by the o.p. nos. 1 and 2, rather the complainant himself more or less in not enquiring with the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 from time to time or for accepting unsigned receipts. The o.p. nos. 1 and 2 requested the complainant to receive the amount with interest in respect of the amount deposited in the bank to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- since the complainant has not accepted the same and the o.ps also denied that there is/was no deficiency in service on their part and answering o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
O.p. no.3 did not contest the case in spite of issuance of notice through publication in the news paper. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against him.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,05,000/-?
- Whether the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 received the said amount or Rs.1,92,000/-?
- Whether there is/was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is an account holder known as PIGMY Account being a recurring deposit account with the o.p. no.1. The complainant opened the said account in the month of February,2010 and started deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and the stipulated period was of 5 years. After the expiry of the said period the complainant could have received the amount deposited by him along with the interest accrued thereon. The amount was collected from the complainant by the o.p. no.3 against receipts were issued under the seal of o.p. no.1. The complainant made a total deposit of Rs.3,05,000/- in 61 installments and after the expiry of stipulated period complainant went to o.p. bank for getting back the amount but he was informed that the amount lying in the account was Rs.1,92,000/- instead of the principal amount of Rs.3,05,000/-. The complainant thereafter sent a letter asking for the refund of the amount but no fruitful result was achieved. It has also been averred by the complainant that the o.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and equally liable for the act of the o.p. no.3, it is their vicarious liability to pay the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest accrued thereon. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 for refund of the entire amount of Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest plus compensation of Rs.1 Lakh and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the contesting o.ps argued that o.p. no.3 is an employee of the o.p. no.1 and he was only a PIGMY agent of the o.p. no.1. The total amount deposited in the books of the bank was of Rs.1,92,000/- and not Rs.3,05,000/- as claimed by the complainant. None of the receipts marked as Annexure-A bears the signature of the branch manager. It has been specifically stated that bank has received a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- not Rs.3,05,000/-. The complainant is put to strict proof that he deposited the amount in the bank of Rs.3,05,000/-. The o.ps also denied the allegation of carelessness of casual treatment with regard to providing customer service by the o.p. nos. 1 and 2, rather the complainant himself more or less in not enquiring with the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 from time to time or for accepting unsigned receipts. The o.p. nos. 1 and 2 requested the complainant to receive the amount with interest in respect of the amount deposited in the bank to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- since the complainant has not accepted the same and the o.ps also denied that there is/was no deficiency in service on their part and answering o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant opened an account with the o.ps and the complainant has stated that he paid the amount to the o.p. no.3 who acted as an agent of o.p. no.1 and he accepted the amount from the complainant and issued the receipts. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that it is the vicarious liability of the o.p. nos.1 and 2 for the act of the agent, who admittedly was appointed by the o.p. no.1 and by virtue of his appointment he used to accept the deposits and granted receipts. On perusal of the receipts filed by the complainant we find that those receipts were not signed by the bank and there is no seal of the bank on those receipts. The bank after claim made by the complainant categorically stated that the amount was deposited to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- which the o.p. bank wanted to refund to the complainant along with interest but the complainant did not accept the same for which the amount could not be disbursed in favour of the complainant. Since the amount was not accepted by the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 from the complainant, therefore, it cannot be said that amount was taken by the bank o.p. nos. 1 and 2 the sole responsibility lies on o.p. no.3 who took the money from the complainant. The complainant whenever found that the receipts had no signature of the bank or the seal he could have made an enquiry to the bank but know the fate of the deposit made by him. But the complainant totally ignored his duty to make contact with the bank to have the clear picture of the amount deposited by him, but after the lapse of several years the complainant now held responsible to the bank for not paying the amount of Rs.3,05,000/-. If the complainant had plaid the amount to the agent and the agent failed to deposit the amount to the bank in that event the agent has responsible for the same and the agent has committed the breach of trust against the complainant. The complainant could have lodged a criminal case against the said agent while he came to learn that amount was deposited to the bank to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- but the complainant did not take any step against the o.p. no.3 for not depositing the balance amount of Rs.1,13,000/- thereby we hold that the responsibility totally lies upon the o.p. no.3. The complainant has not adduced any evidence on the contrary the o.p. adduced evidence and it is also found from the record that the complainant remained absent for prolonged period and the o.ps tried to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant but the complainant since failed to appear, therefore, the draft of Rs.5,000/- as per the order passed by the State Commission could not be paid to the complainant. The complainant has relied on a decision as reported in 2007 CTJ 473 (NCDRC) and on perusal of the said judgment of NCDRC as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, we held that the fact of the said case is totally different from the fact of this case. Thereby ruling as cited by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant is not applicable in this case. On the basis of the facts stated above, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant will be entitled to get the amount of Rs.1,92,000/- with interest which the bank has agreed to provide to the complainant.
In view of the facts stated above, we hold that the o.p. no.3 is liable to pay the balance amount i.e. Rs.3,05,000/- - Rs.1,92,000/- = Rs.1,13,000/- plus interest. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, Ordered
That the CC No. 188 of 2017 is allowed in part against the o.p. no.3. The o.p. no.3 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,13,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and also litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
The o.p. bank is directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, if the complainant is agreed to receive the amount of Rs.1,92,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand) only plus interest and at the time of accepting the amount Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) cost is to be added which was not accepted by the complainant as per the order passed by State Commission.
