BUDH PRAKASH vs STATE BANK OF PATIALA

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents before us and three other persons who were made opposite parties before the State Commission.

BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing the case were that it was the case of the complainant that he retired from Delhi Cloth Mill and was given his retirement benefits. Adding to this, the sale proceeds of his jewellery and plot of land, he deposited a total sum of Rs. 5,50,000 in ten FDs with the respondent Bank, allured by one of the employees Shri Vinod Kumar Kashyap, whom the complainant knew. It was the case of the complainant before the State Commission that out of ten FDRs, the complainant could get encashed only one FDR of Rs. 25,000 having maturity date of 22. 3. 1995. Remaining amount of Rs. 5,25,000 was grabbed by the opposite parties before the State Commission in collusion with each other. Seeing this, a Police complaint was filed on 19. 5. 1995. The AGM of the respondent Bank also carried out an investigation. As per complaint filed, it was the case of the complainant that OP No. 4 before the State Commission, namely, Mr. Vinod Kumar Kashyap, in collusion with OP Nos. 5 and 6 before the State Commission, opened a savings Bank account No. 6273/45 in the name of the complainant at Karol Bagh Branch of State Bank of Patiala and the entire amount of the FDRs was deposited in that account after obtaining the signatures of the complainant. It is admitted position that complainant knew Shri V. K. Kashyap very well. It was also alleged by the complainant that the part of TDR/sdr have been credited to the demand loan account and the balance amount has been credited to the Banker''s Cheque Account for issue of Banker''s cheque. These Banker''s cheques have been collected through the same account opened at Karol Bagh Branch. It was his case that OP No. 4 before the State Commission has opened all the demand loan accounts of the complainant and has also closed the demand loan account. It was also his case that various cheques received in the name of the complainant were deposited in the said account at Karol Bagh Branch in the name of the complainant and these amounts were withdrawn by OP No. 4 under the false signature of the complainant. It was his case that he never visited Karol Bagh Branch. It was also his case, that at the time of opening of the account at Karol Bagh Branch of the respondent Bank, his signatures were forged and the name of the person who introduced is one Shri B. M. Gupta, a Special Assistant at the Karol Bagh Branch. It is further stated that Shri B. M. Gupta, also got fictitious photograph and account opening form verified and also issued the cheque book. It is his case that it is OP No. 4 before the State Commission, who has misappropriated the entire amount of the TDR/sdr by getting Banker''s cheque issued, according to the complainant he gave TDR/sdr to OP No. 4 on 28. 3. 1995 and the latter ran away with these receipts. It was also alleged that the OP Nos. 4 to 6 took advantage of the position in the Bank and played fraud not only with the Bank but also with the complainant. It was also stated that the case was investigated by CBI on the basis of which FIR was lodged and a criminal case is pending in the Court of Mr. Ajit Barihog, ADJ, Delhi. It is in these circumstances alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and OP Nos. 4 to 6 before the State Commission, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after going through the material on record dismissed the complaint while observing as follows: "we have carefully considered the documents/material on record and have also considered the argument advance from both parties. From a perusal of the complaint itself it is apparent that the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The complainant was having his account with OP No. 2 and it is admitted by him that he signed various cheques, and completely relied on OP No. 4 who is son of his colleague. An account was opened by OP No. 4 with OP No. 3 in the name of the complainant under forged signature which were identified by OP No. 5. The acts of OP Nos. 4, 5 and 6 make out a criminal offence and admittedly they are facing criminal proceedings for act of fraud and cheating. The complainant was not a consumer as regards OP Nos. 5 and 6 are concerned and OP Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not providing any service to the complainant. The complainant was a consumer of only OP No. 2 against whom no deficiency in service is alleged. Even if the entire complaint is considered to be true no consumer dispute is made out from the allegations and hence this commission has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. We have full sympathies with the complainant who has been deprived of his hard-earned savings by the criminal act of OP No. 4 in connivance with OP Nos. 5 and 6 for which they are facing prosecution. Since no consumer dispute is involved from the facts of the case, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The present complaint filed by the complainant is disposed of in above terms.

Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. It is very pertinent to note that the appellant/complainant has deleted the names of OP Nos. 4 to 6, namely, Vinod Kumar Kashyap, B. M. Gupta and R. L. Maurya, the employees of the Bank, even when they were opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 before the State Commission.

We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at considerable length and perused the material on record. The question of deposit of Rs. 5,50,000 and issue of FDR are not in dispute. The basic grouse of the appellant is against one Vinod Kumar Kashyap, who was OP No. 4 before the State Commission and whose name has been deleted for the reasons best known to the appellant/complainant. If we look at the background and the conduct of the complainant we are of the view ''lesser said better''. What has driven us to this deduction is first 10 lines of the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant before the State Commission, which reads as follows: "shri Budh Prakash was well known to Shri Vinod Kumar Kashyap as mentioned in para No. 6 of his complaint letter. He used to frequently visit to the branch, sit with Vinod Kumar Kashyap. The discharges given at the back of the TDRs/ SDRs at the time of taking the loans are genuine. The signatures on loan documents are genuine. "

(Emphasis supplied)

THE above goes to show that the appellant/complainant knew Shri V. K. Kashyap very well and the discharge (s) given at the back of TDR/sdrs are genuine. The signature on loan documents are genuine, which makes us believe that complainant was a party to the whole thing and if there is any negligence or breach of trust, then only OP No. 4 is liable in his personal capacity as a known person to the complainant. Any deficiency on the part of the respondent Bank before us has not been shown at all much less proved and the person against whom allegations were made in the original complaint have been dropped from the Memo of Appeal filed before us. We do not like to comment on this part of the conduct of the appellant except to draw an adverse inference against the appellant.

IN the aforementioned circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated by us above, and also ably summarised by the State Commission, we are constrained to support the order passed by the State Commission. In view of above, we see no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.