The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 filed by one Jagannath Das, Son of Kartick Chandra Das, resident of Netajipally, P.O. & P.S.- Raiganj, Dist.- Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 41/18 in this Forum.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a consumer of O.P bank namely Central Bank of India, Raiganj Branch and the complainant is operating a savings bank account with the O.P Bank bearing account no-1302638818.
In the month of February, 2017 for the purpose of depositing money amounting to Rs.500000/- in the MIS scheme the complainant came to the bank and one of the official staff of O.P Bank namely Sourav Das came to the complainant and gave the assurance to the complainant that he will offer all kind of operations investment of account in the MIS scheme. It is to be mentioned that Sourav Das was previously known to the complainant as Sourav Das is a resident of Raiganj and a permanent staff of the O.P Bank.
The said Sourav Das took signature of the complainant in the fixed deposit form under the MIS scheme and also took passbook and other documents from the complainant.
On 17/02/2017 the said Sourav Das called the petitioner/complainant and handed over the two certificates amounting to Rs.250000/- each vide certificates No’s 828973 & 828974. But said Sourav Das did not hand over the other documents which were taken by him from the complainant. At that time said Sourav Das stated that the interest amount will be automatically credited to the bank account of the complainant just after 2/3 months and he will hand over the said documents after 1st installments.
After the assurance of said Sourav Das the complainant came to the bank but at that time he did not find Sourav Das and thereafter, the complainant visited the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Raiganj for 4/5 times for getting his pass book and other documents but the complainant did not able to meet Sourav Das.
On 17/05/2017 the complainant again meet to the bank and without finding Sourav Das the complainant directly communicated the Branch Manager of Central bank of India, Raiganj about the incident and asked the status of his bank account and fixed deposit account.
After hearing the facts of the complainant the Branch manager stated him to bring the original fixed deposit certificates to him. On 17-05-2017 the complainant brought the original fixed deposit certificates and showed the same certificate to the Branch Manager. On that day the Branch Manager told him that he had to need some enquires. The complainant handed over the original fixed deposit certificates and the branch manager handed over a receipt to that effect on that day.
Thereafter, several times and several months have been passed but the complainant did not receive any reply from the O.P Bank inspite of several times of visiting bank. But the complainant did not able to find out the staff namely Sourav Das and also not able to get back his bank passbook and other relevant documents which was handed over to Sourav Das. Thereafter, the complainant created a chaos at the bank premises and the O.P Bank compelled to furnish the statement to the complainant and on perusal of the bank statement the complainant came to know that said Sourav Das had taken away another Rs.50,000/- from the bank account along with Rs.5,00,000/-.
On 20/06/2017 the complainant requested by a letter to the O.P bank to do the needful steps so that he can get back his amount but ultimately there was no fruitful result came out.
Accordingly, on 28/07/2017 the complainant filed an application before the authority under the R.T.I Act. On getting the reply in respect of the R.T.I application the complainant came to know that the complainant closed the fixed deposit account on 18/04/2017 and the amount has been taken by the complainant. After knowing such fact the complainant became perplexed as because how the fixed deposit account was closed without his consent which was lying with the custody of the complainant and such act is in gross violation of the banking rules. The complainant never gave valid consent for closing the MIDR account and such act on the part of the bank is illegal to save the dishonest staff namely Sourav Das and such act on the part of the bank Authority is in gross violation for the bank rules and there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practices happened on the part of the bank.
As such the complainant has filed the case for claiming of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest, Rs.2,00,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.25,000/- for litigation cost.
The petition has been contested by the bank by filing W.V denying all the material allegations as labeled against the bank contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable and the case is also barred by mis joinder and non joinder of parties and it is admitted that Jagannath Das is a customer of the O.P bank having a saving bank account bearing No-1302638818.
The definite defence case is that the complainant maintained two MIDR vide no-167908 & 167907 and amounting to Rs.200000/- & 300000/- and it is lso admitted that Sourav Das being a resident of Raiganj this is why Jagannath das used to know Sourav Das of that bank.
The further defence case is that in order to get more interest the complainant desired to break his MIDRs and sought assistance of Sourav das to make new MIDRs of each amounting of Rs.2,50,000/-.
The further defence case is that Sourav Das is an employee of Central bank of India, Raiganj Branch misutilized his position and he stolen 100 leaves of demand drafts, 100 leaves of fixed deposit receipts, security items and issue register from the vault of the bank. For which a written complaint was lodged before Raiganj police Station on 19/05/2017.
Thereafter, Sourav Das was suspended in respect of that theft and his salary became 1/3rd from his earlier drawn salary and departmental enquiry is going on against Sourav Das.
The further defence case is that the complainant himself closed his two MIDR accounts bearing No-167907 & 167908 and transferred the closure amount to his S.B A/c No-1302638818 in the name of Laxmi Rani Das & Jagannath Das and the complainant discharged his liability by putting his signature in back side of the instrument.
The further defence case is that no formal application is required to close the MIDR. If the complainant put his signature in back side of MIDR, it tantamount that the holder has discharged his official liability.
The further defence case is that the O.P.No-1 that is Central Bank of India is unable to refund the money of FDR as the complainant never put his signature at the time of receiving FDR before the register maintained by the O.P and there is no official record of receiving the FDR. At the time of new FDR, the complainant did not come before any bank official to fill up new form.
The further defence case is that the case has been filed to humiliate the bank authority to the public at large, so considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
In order to prove the case the complainant Jagannath Das was himself examined as PW1 and he was cross examined. He filed documents by way of firisti. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand on behalf of the bank Sri Chandra Kanta Mandal, Sr. Manager, Central Bank of India, Raiganj Branch was examined as O.P.W.1. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.
Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
D E C I S I O N W I T H R E A S O N S:
It is not disputed that Jagannath Das on 16.02.17 purchased two MIDRs one amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- and another Rs.2,00,000/-. The date of maturity of those MIDR was 16.02.27. Now the dispute arises that whether the complainant legally withdrew the money after breaking the MIDRs. In this regard the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. argued that on the back side of MIDRs the complainant make an endorsement for premature and credited his S.B. Account. On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that no application was filed for premature withdrawal of the amount how the bank authority permitted for premature withdrawal without any formal application. He further submitted that mere filing the formal application for premature withdrawal is not sufficient. It must be sanctioned by the Branch Manager. No document has been produced by the bank authority. In reply the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P i.e bank authority has replied that no separate application is required for closing MIDR. If the complainant put his signature in the back side of MIDR it tantamount that the holder of the instrument discharge his official liability. But this Forum is not the same view with the submission of the Ld. Lawyer that mere putting signature in the back side of the MIDR is sufficient to hold that the holder of the instrument discharge his official liability. Moreover on perusal of the two MIDRs we do not find the date on the back. No reason has been mentioned why the MIDR was premature. The general practice of the system is that for the premature of any type of F.D.R or MIDR application is required to be filed before the bank authority and the bank authority on being satisfied with the reasons as mentioned in the application will allow for premature withdrawal. But the bank authority did not file any such application. Moreover on perusal of the terms and condition as mentioned in the two MIDR certificate in clause-8 it has been clearly stated that no payment will be made before the due date mark on the certificate. In the certificate it is mentioned that due date is 16.02.27 how the amount was paid to the holder of the MIDR. So it goes to show that this is one of the latches on the part of bank authority. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that not a single piece of evidence has come to the Forum that the petitioner has filed any application for depositing money in Fixed Deposit Receipt and no money receipt was produced for favoring FDR. But such argument is useless as because in the FDR the bank authority put their signature along with seal.
Next point argued by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P is that two FDRs were not issued by the bank authority in favour of Jagannath Das.The explanation given by the bank authority is that Sourav Das was the sub staff i.e. Gr.’D’ employee of the Central Bank of India at the relevant time was posted at Raiganj Branch and he took away 100 leaves of demand draft, 100 leaves of FDR numbering 828901 to 829000 and security items from the vault of the bank. This Forum is not the same view with the submission of the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P how a Gr.’D’ staff unlock the vault when the key of the vault is lying with the Branch Manager. So the Br. Manager cannot exonerate his liability. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P submits that for this reason the written complaint was lodged against Sourav Das to the Raiganj P.S for which a Crl. Case was instituted and that case was pending. Moreover that employee Sourav Das has been suspended. It is immaterial whether he has been suspended or criminal case was instituted against Sourav Das. That matter relates to Bank Authority. But the main question as to the latches of Bank authority how the key of the vault was handed over to Sourav Das, a ‘D’ Group employee and he took away valuable document from the vault . Definitely it is latches on the part of the bank authority and that indicates that they have no control over the ‘D’ group employee/staff.
The next point argued by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P is that no F.D.R was issued in favour of Jagannath Das as Jagannath Das did not put any signature in the issue register showing that he has received the certificate of F.D.R. But such argument is not tenable as because in the F.D.R we find the signature of Bank Authority with seal. It is not understood why the bank authority put the signature along with seal. That goes to show that two F.D.Rs issued by the bank authority. If those receipts were not issued by the bank authority why the bank authority put their signature along with seal in the F.D.R. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submits that the complainant being a poor person and having a faith upon Sourav Das who was a Gr. ‘D’ employee of the bank assured that he will get much more interest than the MIDR this is why two F.D.Rs were issued. On good faith he handed over the cheques to Sourav Das.
Now the question comes whether the bank authority is liable for any act done by its any employee. In this regard the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant refers the case laws reported in 2013(1) CPJ 608, 1994(3) CPJ 491 and 1997(3) CPJ 290. On perusal of the case laws it is found that bank is responsible for misdeed done by the employee. Moreover, there was paper publication that Sourav Das has misappropriate the money to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- by cheating the customers. Actually that matter is not look out by this Forum. But judicial notice as regards to the acts and antecedents of Sourav Das may be considered.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P refers a case law reported in 1978 Air 1263 by which the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P wants to impress upon the Forum that the bank authority is not liable to pay any compensation for the Fault of his employee. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P submits that in this case the legal principle which governs the vicarious liability of an employer for the loss caused to a customer through the misdemeanor or negligence of an employee are : a) The employer is not liable for the act of the servant if the cause of the loss or damage arose without his actual fault or privity or without the fault or neglect of his agents or servants in the course, of their employment; (b) the damage complained of must be shown to have been caused by any wrongful act of his servant or agent done within the scope or course of the servant or agent’s employment even if the wrongful act. …………………… But this case law had no relation with the present case as because a sub staff was entrusted to deal with the security documents. According to the rule and practice of the bank the security documents must be kept in the vault under lock and key under the direct supervision of the branch manager. How the sub staff got the access to the vault? Definitely the bank authority had a trust or reliance upon the sub staff Sourav Das for which he dealt with the security documents. So this case law has no relation with this case.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P submitted another case law namely N. Sridhar Vs. Maruthi Jayaraman and another in Appeal Suit No.10 of 2002 of Madras High Court. On perusal of the case law it is found that the master’s liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful one authorized by the master or a wrongful one and unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master.” In the instant case it is found that unless and until a sub staff is authorized by his master to deal with the security documents how a sub staff Sourav Das able to deal with the security documents. Such act indicates that he was authorized by his master i.e the branch manager of that branch. So this case law has no application in this case.
In this case it is to be mentioned that how a Nationalized Bank authorize a sub staff to deal with the security documents which documents are kept in a vault under lock and key. Such act completely indicates the lack of supervision of the branch manager and lackadaisical attitude of the branch manager and such attitude of the branch manager give the opportunity to deal with the security documents by a sub-staff. This indicates the lack of supervision by the higher officer of that bank. As such the Regional Manager of Central Bank of India to look into the matter and make an enquiry under what circumstances sub-stuff like Sourav Das was entrusted to deal with the security documents which are generally kept in the vault under lock and key. Such observation of this Forum will be treated as an order. As such the Regional Manager is directed to make an enquiry within 15 days from the date of this order and submit a report to this Forum as because due to the latches of such bank officer the innocent customers are being suffered and public money is being misused.
So, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is found that the complainant has been able to prove the case and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
C.F. paid is correct,
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D:
That the complainant case being No. CC-41/18 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.
The complainant gets Rs.5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lack) only with interest at the prevailing bank rate on and from the date 17.02.17 over the Fixed Deposit. The O.Ps are directed to pay the said amount. Besides that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost. The O.Ps are further directed that the entire amount as ordered above will be paid within 45 days from the date of this order failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum after the lapse of 45 days over the accumulated amount. In case of default of payment the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of law.
Initially Bank Authority will pay the amount to the complainant. The bank authority is at liberty to realize the amount from the salary of Sourav Das month by month after giving an opportunity to him.
Let a free copy of this order be supplied to the parties on proper application.
