BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA vs JAGARNATH PANDEY

THIS appeal by opposite party-appellant is directed against an order dated 7.3.1995 passed by District Forum, Muzaffarpur, in Case No. 188 of 1994 whereby the District Forum has directed the opposite party-appellant to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant (respondent) as compensation for the loss caused to him within three months from the date of the impugned order failing which the complainant would be entitled to realise the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of the order.

THE complainant (respondent in this appeal) filed a complaint before the District Forum, Muzaffarpur, alleging therein that he had Savings Bank Account No. 637 in Minapur Branch of United Bank of India. On 4.4.1994 he wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) by depositing withdrawal form in the said Branch of the Bank but the same could not be withdrawn and the withdrawal form was returned back to him even after acceptance. As a result of that he sustained a loss of Rs. 30,000/- in his lichi business. On the allegations aforesaid, the complainant claimed Rs. 30,000/- by way of relief. The opposite party-appellant filed written statement and contested the case before the District Forum. The case of the opposite party was that the complainant had no cause of action and the complaint and claim of the complainant was not maintainable. Minapur branch of the Bank is a rural branch and it has to keep only limited amount of cash from safety point of view as well as in accordance with the directive of the Bank. On the alleged date there was heavy rush of customers all on a sudden for withdrawing cash and the branch had tried its best to make payment of all withdrawals by sending its staff for obtaining cash from the chest of the Bank at Muzaffarpur but failed to do so. The complainant and some others had agreed to take payment on the next morning and on subsequent day in early banking hours payment was made to the complainant and to those who had agreed for payment on next morning. So there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and the complainant did not suffer any loss due to non-payment of withdrawal on the alleged date. Apart from that, such failure on the part of the Bank cannot be the subject-matter of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act as in the matter of payment of withdrawal the relationship between the banker and customer is that of debtor-creditor and the Bank has not rendered service for consideration as envisaged in the Act. On these allegations the opposite party had prayed for dropping the proceeding.

The complainant filed reply to the written statement of the opposite party stating therein that the money of the complainant was in deposit in his aforesaid account in the Bank which the complainant had a right to withdraw and that being so, he was neither taking loan from the Bank nor the Bank was advancing any loan. So the plea of opposite party that there was relationship of creditor and debtor is baseless. The depositors of money in the Bank are consumers in respect of services of the Bank and they are least concerned with the fact if there is money in the chest of the Bank or not. Since there was more money in the account of the complainant than that which he wanted to withdraw, it was incumbent on the Bank to honour the withdrawal but the employees of the Bank knowingly and with a view to cause loss and to harass him (complainant) mentally, made him to sit in the Bank premises from the start of the banking hour till the end thereof and ultimately returned the withdrawal form. There was money in the Bank but withdrawal by him (complainant) was not allowed.

IN support of his case the complainant examined himself and one more witness before the District Forum. The opposite party-appellant neither examined any witness nor filed any affidavit in support of the case as made out in the written statement. On the basis of admitted facts and the materials on record the District Forum passed the impugned order directing for payment of compensation as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Now it has to be considered if the impugned order is sustainable in law of not. At the time of hearing of this appeal no one appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest the appeal and hence it was heard ex parte. Certain facts are not disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant-respondent had Savings Bank Account No. 637 in Minapur Branch of United Bank of India. It is also not disputed that on 4.4.1994 the complainant had submitted withdrawal form for withdrawing Rs. 5,000/- from the said account. It is also not disputed that the complainant had more money in his said account than what he wanted to withdraw. It is also not disputed that the withdrawal form submitted by the complainant had been accepted by the said branch of the Bank but was ultimately returned to the complainant on 4.4.1994 and the withdrawal of the desired amount was allowed on the next day. The case of the opposite party in the written statement that the branch in question is a rural branch of the Bank and it has to keep only limited amount of cash from safety point of view has not been disputed by the complainant in his reply to the written statement. Similarly the plea in the written statement of the opposite party that on 4.4.1994 there was heavy rush of customers all on a sudden for withdrawing cash has not been disputed by the complainant in his reply to the written statement. In the light of the above mentioned admitted and undisputed facts it has to be considered if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank or not.

AS mentioned earlier, it is not disputed that the branch in question is a rural branch of the Bank and cannot keep huge sum of money in its chest from the point of view of safety. Undisputedly there was huge rush of customers on 4.4.1994 for withdrawing money from the Bank. It is not the case of the complainant either in his complaint petition or in his reply to the written statement that huge rush of customers for withdrawal of money was expected on the said date but the Bank was knowingly not prepared for that. Since the branch in question was a rural branch having limited amount of cash in its chest from safety point of view and since there was huge rush of customers on the relevant date for withdrawal of money and since the withdrawal form submitted by the complainant was simply returned to be entertained on the next date and since the desired amount was withdrawn by the complainant on the next date, we are of the view that it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the written statement of the opposite party it has been pleaded that the complainant like some others had agreed to take payment on the next day and this plea has not been controverted by the complainant in his reply to the written statement. Undisputedly the complainant took payment of the desired amount on the next date. In view of this also it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. That being so, the impugned order awarding compensation is not sustainable in law. In his complaint petition the complainant has alleged that he sustained loss of Rs. 30,000/- in his lichi business due to return of his withdrawal form by the Bank. The complainant has examined himself as well as one Ganga Ram as witness before the District Forum but they have not stated in their deposition that the complainant sustained any loss due to return of withdrawal form. There is no evidence to susbtantiate the allegation that the complainant sustained loss due to return of the withdawal form submitted by him on 4.4.1994. In view of this also, the awarding of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- by the District Forum is not justified and hence the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In view of what has been pointed out in the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.