BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.74/2009 Order dated this the 15th day of September 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.B.Mallannagowda, No.EWS-166, Sri.Basave Traders, 2nd Main, 8th Cross, Kengeri Upanagara, Bangalore 60. (By Sri.H.P.Sadashivappa., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Secretary/Manager, The Mandya City Co-operative Bank, V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate) Date of complaint 20.06.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 29.06.2009 Date of order 15.09.2009 Total Period 2 Months 16 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to make entries of Rs.30,580/- as on 03.01.2008 by making the entry of Rs.34,826/- on 08.09.2007 and to credit Rs.38,319/- on 06.06.2007 to the S.B. Account of the Complainant and issue fresh pass book and further directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within one month. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party Bank to remit / credit the shortcoming amounts to his S.B. Account. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is having S.B. Account No.5069 in Opposite party Bank and regularly operating transaction in respect of his salary, P.F. and Insurance amount. The Complainant presented cheque for Rs.1,53,626/- on 16.08.2007 and the said amount was credited to his account. Thereafter, the Complainant has withdrawn Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively on 18.08.2007 and 28.08.2007 and the balance is shown as Rs.24,079.60 paise in the pass book. Thereafter, the Complainant on 08.09.2007 presented cheque for Rs.34,826/- and it was credited to his account and balance was Rs.58,905.60 paise as per the pass book. Again, the Complainant has withdrawn Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on several dates and the balance of Rs.24,582.60 paise was shown in the pass book on 24.11.2007. On 15.12.2007, Rs.9,000/- was credited to his account and the balance was Rs.33,582/-. Out of which Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- have been withdrawn by the Complainant on 24.12.2007 and 03.01.2008 respectively and the balance was Rs.30,580/- in the pass book. But, the Complainant when approached 6 months back, the Opposite party Bank for drawing the amount, the Opposite party Bank Staff has stated that only Rs.6,000/- is available in the account. The Complainant has presented L.I.C. cheque issued in his favour for Rs.38,319/- on 06.06.2007, but the said cheque amount was not at all credited to his account. Even Rs.34,826/- deposited as per the pass book entries on 08.09.2007 was not at all credited to his account. Therefore, the Opposite party Bank Officials have misused the amounts and make false entries in the pass book as well as bank account of the Complainant by not entering the actual money and cheque deposits and transactions and thereby the Opposite party Bank has committed fraud by forging the documents, which amounts to deficiency in service. Immediately, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 14.04.2009 and though served, the Opposite party has not taken any steps to correct the discrepancies and fabrications of entries in the account of the Complainant. Hence, the presence complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the Complainant was regularly operating his account and he is an account holder. The pass book was issued by the Opposite party Bank, but the disputed entries of the pass book are all concocted and created. It is false that the Complainant on 16.08.2007 presented the cheque for Rs.1,53,626/- and was credited to his account and he has withdrawn the amount as stated in the complaint and the balance is shown in the pass book. It is false that the Complainant presented the cheque for Rs.34,826/- and the balance was Rs.7,225.60 paise and not Rs.30,580/-. It is false that the Complainant presented the L.I.C. cheque for Rs.38,319/- on 06.06.2007 with a challan, the challan is a concocted and created document in collusion with the suspended employees of the Opposite party Bank by mentioning anti date. The allegation of the fabrication and concoction of the entries are created. Actually the Complainant has fabricated the entries of the pass book in collusion with the suspended employees of the bank in mentioning anti date. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party Bank. The legal notice has been suitably replied, there is no cause of action. The Opposite party Bank based on the nature of the complaint made by the customers has submitted a report. However, domestic enquiry is still pending before Enquiry Officer. Unless and until a detailed report of the enquiry officer is received, the report submitted by the Opposite party Bank is not a conclusive proof. In case, if serious loss is caused to the Complainant, certainly he can approach the Civil Court. However, the Opposite party Bank has already initiated criminal proceedings against the suspended employees by lodging a complaint. The pass book finds a seal, but there is no signature of the bank employees in and around the seal. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined as P.W.1 and has produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.9. The Opposite party is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 document. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he has deposited Rs.38,319/- on 06.06.2007 and Rs.34,661/- on 12.07.2007 by presenting the cheques? 2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party Bank Officials have made false entries in the account of the Complainant contrary to the pass book entries? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed fact is that the Complainant is a customer of the Opposite party Bank having S.B.Account No.5069 and he was regularly operating his account. The Opposite party Bank issued the pass book. 9. The Complainant has produced the pass book Ex.C.4. According to the Complainant, he presented cheque for Rs.1,53,626/- on 16.08.2007 and the said amount was credited to his account. The Opposite party has disputed the same. But we do not find the entry in the account extract Ex.C.7, but we find entry in the pass book. According to the Complainant, he deposited cheque for Rs.34,826/- and it was credited to his account on 08.09.2007 and on 15.12.2007 he has deposited Rs.9,000/- and it was credited to his account and shown in the pass book and as on 03.01.2008, the balance was Rs.30,580/-. But, when the Complainant about six months back approached the Opposite party Bank for drawing the amount, the Opposite party staff have stated that only Rs.6,000/- is available in the account. According to the Opposite party, the entries in the pass book are created in collusion with the suspended employees of the Opposite party Bank who are facing enquiry with regard to the report prepared by the Opposite party Bank on the allegations made by the customers and even criminal proceedings against the suspended employees is initiated in Crime No.62/2008. The Opposite party has denied the balance of Rs.30,580/- and according to it, the balance was only Rs.7,225/-. 10. Usually, the customer relies upon the pass book entries, but the entries in the pass book must be according to the entries made in the customers account. Under the Bankers Evidence Act, the entries made in the accounts in the Bank shall be presumed to be true, unless it is proved that the entries are false or in-correct. But, if we peruse the pass book Ex.C.4 and the account extract Ex.C.7, it is doubtful to believe the entries in the account, because according to the entries in the pass book, the entries starts from 06.08.2007 with opening balance of Rs.467.60 paise. On 06.08.2007 he has deposited of Rs.2,796/-, we find that entries in the account extract Ex.C.7. Even, we find entry of Rs.1,53,626/- on 16.08.2007 both in the pass book and the account extract. But, as per the pass book, the Complainant has withdrawn Rs.30,000/- on 18.08.2007 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.08.2007, but in the account extract, it is shown that entry of Rs.1,53,626/- was drawn on 16.08.2007 itself. When the cheque was presented, naturally it requires one day for collection, even in case of local bank cheques. But, contrary to withdrawals shown in the pass book Ex.C.4, the withdrawal of the entire cheque amount is shown on the same day in account extract Ex.C.7. Further, as per the account extract, the Complainant has not made any transaction till 15.12.2007, when he deposited of Rs.9,000/- which finds a place in the pass book and earlier to that he has made some transaction, which we do not find in the account extract. Further, as per Ex.C.2, the Complainant has deposited cheque for Rs.34,661/- on 12.07.2007 and it find a place on 14.07.2007 in the account extract Ex.c.7 and it does not find a place in the pass book, because the entry starts from 06.08.2007. According to the pass book, the Complainant has deposited cheque for Rs.34,826/- and it was credited to his account on 08.09.2007 and it is entered in the pass book, but we do not find such entry in the pass book. The Complainant it appears had given petition as per Ex.R.1 to the Opposite party Bank about this cheque amount and the Opposite party has given reply Ex.C.6, wherein it is stated that the cheque No.394546 dated 27.08.2007 for Rs.34,826/- is not encashed in that bank. But, the said cheque was encashed through Mullige Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore, as per the letter of Bank of Baroda, Mandya. If actually, the Complainant had not deposited the said cheque, how the Opposite party Bank is able to collect the cheque number, date and the name of Mullige Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore and Bank of Baroda, when the Complainant has not whispered in Ex.R.1 the name of the bank which issued the cheque and cheque number. So, it is clearly established that the Opposite party Bank has custody of documents for having presented the said cheque to the Opposite party Bank and on that basis they have collected the materials. In fact, in Ex.R.1, the Complainant has complained that at the time of presenting the said cheque of Rs.34,826/-, the staff Jayaram obtained the signature to empty cheque, saying that it is required to get transfer of the amount to his account and even another staff Pankajakshi said the same thing and he has stated other complaints in the application about the balance when he went to draw the amount. 11. Though, the Opposite party has admitted in the version that it has issued to the pass book to the Complainant and disputed the entries made in the pass book stating that in collusion with the suspended employees, the entries are got fabricated, but the Opposite party in his evidence has gone to the extent of deposing that Ex.C.4 pass book is not issued by the Bank saying that it does not bear the seal and the signature, but an another breath, he has admitted that there is a seal of the bank in the pass book. He has not deposed who are suspended employees and whose entries are found in the pass book Ex.C.4 to believe that the entries are concocted. Naturally, the customer will depend upon the entries made in the pass book at the time of transaction and will suspect the entries only when the bank informed that there is no sufficient fund in the account contrary to the pass book entries. In fact, the Opposite party has not at all replied to the legal notice Ex.C.8, but he has sent reply Ex.C.5 and C.6 to the petitions given by the Complainant about the wrong entries made in the accounts. Therefore, under these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the entries made in the pass book issued to the Complainant as per Ex.C.4 and the Complainant has proved that the entries made in the accounts are in-correct. 12. Admittedly, on the complaint of customers about the wrong entries made in the account, than entries made in the pass book, the Opposite party Bank prepared a report and submitted the report to the effect that some of the staff have mis-appropriated the amount and they are suspended and enquiry is going on and further criminal proceedings is initiated. The mis-appropriation of the amount by the bank employees is not a ground to penalize the customers who have deposited the amount with trust in the Opposite party Bank. Therefore, it is proved by the Complainant that there was balance of Rs.30,580/- as on 03.01.2008. 13. According to the Complainant, he had deposited cheque for Rs.38,319/- on 06.06.2007 along with the bank challan and the said amount is not credited to his account. The Complainant has produced the challan Ex.c.1, though it is pleaded by the Opposite party Bank that it is created one, but it cannot be rejected on the ground that challan number is not mentioned in Ex.C.1. but it is the duty of the Opposite party Bank staff to make entry of the challan number, the customer will receive the counter challan after presenting the cheque, when the counter challan bears the seal and signature of the staff. Even though, there is specific column in Ex.C.1 for signature of the accountant or cashier, but by putting the round seal on the counter challan, the staff has put signature, it is sufficient for the customer. It cannot be said that the seal is not of the Opposite party Bank, because the Opposite party has nearly 29 seals and the seals are not produced to prove that the seal in Ex.C.1 is not that of the Opposite party Bank. Therefore, though the Complainant has deposited cheque for Rs.38,319/- as per Ex.C.1, it does not find a place either in the pass book or in the account extract. The above materials are sufficient to hold that all is not well in the Opposite party Bank accounts maintenance and according to their whimsies and famishes, the Opposite party staff have made entries in the account extract, than made entries in the pass book and even certain entries are not made, though cheque is presented and cheque amount is misused apparently as per the letter Ex.C.6. Therefore, the Opposite party Bank is liable to credit the said amounts to the S.B. account of the Complainant and Opposite party Bank has committed deficiency in service. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to make entries of Rs.30,580/- as on 03.01.2008 by making the entry of Rs.34,826/- on 08.09.2007 and to credit Rs.38,319/- on 06.06.2007 to the S.B. Account of the Complainant and issue fresh pass book and further directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within one month. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of September 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
