PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The Complainant Smt. Vimla Kachwaha is the mother of Mr. Vasudev Kachawaha, who is working in Punjab National Bank- the Respondent. Complainant purchased 8 percent savings (Taxable) ‘Bond 2003’ on 07.06.2004 from the respondents. Bond was issued by the Government of India and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and others were only the agents on behalf of Reserve Bank for the purpose of sale of those bonds, but the maturity date of this bond was after six years i.e. on 06.06.2010. It is stated that due to the clerical error, the maturity of this bond was mentioned as 07.06.2009, one year before the date of maturity. The second error committed by the Bank was that on 07.06.2009, the maturity amount was paid to Smt. Vimla Kachawaha, obviously without checking the record. 2. Subsequent, it transpired that the petitioners have committed a egregious mistake. They asked the complainant to return the money which was deposited in her account by their mistake and asked the complainant to return back the bond handed over to her. But the complainant even did not care to reply. The petitioner again debited this amount on this basis on 18.07.2009 and gave information in this regard to the complainant through courier. The officers of the Bank orally informed this fact to Sh. Vasudev Kachwaha and requested him to deposit this amount but he also refused to obey the order of his seniors. The petitioner Bank also sent letters on 14.07.2009 and 16.07.2009 information in regard to the inadvertent mistake to the complainant. In the meantime, Smt. Vimla Kachwaha issued the check amount to Rs. 30 lakhs in favour of Mr. Vasudev Kachawaha which was dishonored due to insufficient Funds on 18.07.2009. 3. It also transpired that notice was given by the Bank which was received by a girl named Deepa who was a minor. The complainant claimed that her cheque was dishonoured by which her goodwill was lost. 4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. However, the State Commission granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the State Commission has failed to take notice of the fact that cheque was issued in favour of son of the complainant who was the employee of the petitioner and was aware of the crediting and debiting of the amount of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioners further argues that their acts are bonafide and they are not guilty of any deficiency. The award of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant is not legally tenable. It is argued that the cheques were deliberately issued so that the money should come to the complainant immediately. 5. The entire case clearly goes to show that the Bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. It also appears that the Bank was working in cahoots with its employee Sh. Vasudev Kachwaha. Counsel for the petitioner admits that no action was taken against Vasudev Kachwaha. The higher authorities are prone to turn Nelson’s eye to the indiscipline in the Branch rather than tackling the issue by taking the bull by horns. Action should have been taken against Mr. Vasudev but perhaps the higher authorities are not aware of this indiscipline prevalent in the Bank itself. The entire episode smacks of a Fig Leaf Job. Petitioner is a separate person he has nothing to do for the negligence and passivity on the part of the Bank. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the State Commission is rather on the lower side. 6. The Revision Petition is dismissed. | 
