BANK OF INDIA vs DEEPAK JAISWAL

SINCE the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant Bank under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') are directed against a common order dated 23.1.2001 passed by District Forum No. 1 in four Complaint Cases bearing No. 1188/2000, 1482/2000, 1483/2000 and 1484/2000 entitled Smt. Saroj Sharma & Ors. v. Bank of India, have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, lie in a narrow compass. In all the above mentioned appeals, the respondents had filed separate complaints before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that the respondents had deposited money in the appellant Bank under the Double Benefit Deposit Scheme, floated by the appellant Bank and were issued Double Benefit Deposit Certificates. THE amount, so deposited by the respondents, was re-payable to the respondents after the date of maturity as indicated in the Certificates, stated to have been issued to them by the concerned functionary of the appellant Bank in the ordinary course of business. THE grievance of the respondents in the complaints, filed by them, before the District Forum in nutshell was that the appellant Bank was refusing to pay them the maturity amount of the certificates issued to them under the above said Scheme. It was prayed by the respondents that the appellant Bank be directed to pay the maturity amount to them together with interest, compensation and costs. The claim of the respondents in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant Bank. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent Bank certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaints were taken. On merits it was stated that one Double Benefit Deposit Receipt Book, containing 100 leaves was stealthily removed by one Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who was working at the Hamdard Dawakhana Branch of the appellant bank and said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta had fraudulently issued receipts to the customers from that stolen Receipts Book regarding which a First Information Report (F.I.R.) had already been lodged with the police. It was stated that no amount for the issuance of Certificates under the above said Scheme was received by the appellant Bank and, therefore, the appellant Bank was not liable to make any payment to the respondents.

The learned District Forum has held the appellant Bank guilty of deficiency in service and on the basis of the above finding has passed the order, being impugned in the above mentioned appeals.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeals and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta was an employee of the appellant Bank, working on the Deposit Counter for the Double Benefit Deposit Scheme. The amount in question, under the above said Scheme, was tendered by the respondents at the counter of the appellant Bank to said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta and thereafter the Certificates in question were issued to the respondents under the above said Scheme. During the course of arguments, it is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant Bank that said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta was not authorised to receive the amount in question on behalf of the appellant Bank. It was also stated by her that as said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta was not authorised to receive any amount on behalf of the appellant Bank, the appellant cannot be saddled with any liability in so far as the amount fraudulently received by said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta. In our opinion, in the given facts, the above contention, advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance because as already stated, it is not in dispute that said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta at the relevant time, was an employee of the appellant Bank, manning the Time Deposit counter. It is a matter of common knowledge that a person, who approaches the Bank and deals with the employee of the Bank is not supposed to have knowledge as to whether the person sitting on the counter has been authorised to act on behalf of the Bank or not. In the ordinary course of business the impression which one gathers is that such a person, who has been authorised to sit on the counter, is duly authorised to act on behalf of the Bank. In our opinion, in the given facts, more particularly the facts, that said Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta at the relevant time was an employee of the appellant Bank, working at the Time Deposit counter, the appellant Bank cannot escape the liability. In case the employee of the Bank has acted fraudulently and in that process has caused wrongful loss to the customer and wrongful gain to himself in such a situation the matter is between the Bank and the concerned employee and the customer who has acted on such a representation cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the Bank. For the above reasons, the present appeals, filed by the appellant, in our opinion, are devoid of substance. The same merit dismissal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed in limine.