AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant/respondent was having a savings bank account with the petitioner -Cuttack Gramya Bank at its Sankhatrash branch. According to the complainant, as on 18 -01 -1999 the balance in his account was Rs.25,000/ -. On 13 -07 -2000 when the complainant went to the concerned branch for withdrawal of cash from his account he was informed that there was very less amount in his account. The bank refused to pay Rs.25,000/ - which the complainant claimed to be the balance in his account. Being aggrieved from the refusal of the bank to pay the aforesaid amount the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking payment of Rs.25,000/ - that being the balance in his account along with cost of litigation amounting to Rs.10,000/ - and compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/ -.
THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner -bank inter alia on the ground that after withdrawal of Rs.150/ - from the account on 09 -10 -1995 there was a balance of Rs.99/ - left in the account of the complainant. According to the bank thereafter the complainant failed to make any transaction in his account, as a result of which the said account became inoperative and was closed on 31 -03 -2001. The amount of Rs.121/ - lying in his account was adjusted towards service charges of the bank.
THE District Forum vide its order dated 01 -10 -2003 directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of Rs.25,099/ - to the complainant along with interest on that amount. The petitioner bank was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/ - to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 16 -09 -2008 the petitioner bank is before us by way of this revision petition.
THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/ - was deposited by him with the cashier of the bank at his residence and since the cashier did not deposit the said amount with the concerned branch, it did not find reflected in the account of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that this has not been the case of the petitioner bank in the reply filed before the District Forum, that the aforesaid deposit was made with the cashier of the bank at his residence and, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner bank is not factually correct.
THE petitioner bank has placed on record a copy of the order dated 03 -12 -2007 passed by the High Court of Orissa in CJC No.12639 of 2000. The complainant before this Commission in this case was petitioner No.17 in the aforesaid case. The order of the High Court to the extent it is relevant for our purpose reads as under: "This writ petition has been filed by 27 persons with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus calling upon the opposite parties to pay back the money to the petitioners, who have been demanding money on the basis of the withdrawal slips and/or also for the purpose of completion of investigation by the police.
The short facts of the case are that the petitioners have allegedly deposited money with Cuttack Gramya Bank not in the office of the said Bank but with the Cashier at his house. Learned counsel for the Bank states that the money, which has been deposited with the Bank in its office has been duly accounted for and Annexure -L -1 to the counter would show that the money which is lying in the accounts of the depositors can be withdrawn. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the Bank that the money, which was not deposited in the Bank, has not been entered in the Bank''s register and Bank cannot say anything about its withdrawal.
This Court is of the view that the said case be expedited, but this Court cannot pass any order upon the Bank to refund the money which has not been entered in the Bank''s register. It is a disputed question of fact and this Court possibly cannot go into such question. Similar two such applications in OJC Nos.12466 and 11649 of 2000 have been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16 -03 -2001.
THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to para 9 of the reply filed by the petitioner bank before the District Forum. It is clearly stated in para 9 of the reply that had the complainant deposited any amount on any date in his savings bank account, during banking hours inside the bank''s premises the said amount should have been reflected/mentioned in the ledger book of the concerned branch. This, it would be difficult to dispute that this has been the case of the petitioner bank that the amount in question was not deposited by the complainant with the concerned branch during normal banking hours.
NEITHER the copy of the writ petition filed before the High Court of Odisha nor the copy of the reply filed by the Bank in the aforesaid case is available before this Commission. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained on what basis the High Court recorded that the petitioner had allegedly deposited money not in the office of the Bank, but with the cashier of the Bank at his house. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent states on instructions that the complainant did not allege in the aforesaid writ petition that the money was deposited by them with the cashier of the Bank at his residence. I also find that the High Court, in its order dated 03.12.2007 did not record any finding as to whether the deposit was made by the complainant with the cashier of the Bank at his residence or it was made in the concerned branch during normal banking hours. The High Court, rather recorded that this was a disputable question of facts and it could possibly not go into such question. The High Court also noticed that two similar petitions had earlier been dismissed by a Divisional Bench vide order dated 16.03.2001. Thus, it is evident that no clear cut finding was rendered by the High Court on the disputed question of facts as to whether the money in question was deposited with the cashier at his residence or with the concerned branch during normal banking hours.
THE learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record a copy of the passbook, issued to the complainant as well as a copy of the deposit slip whereby the cashier of the bank purportedly received the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - from the complainant in saving bank account no. 2006 on 18.01.1999. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary to record evidence to render a finding on the question as to whether the aforesaid deposit of Rs. 25,000/ - was made with the concerned branch during normal banking hours on 18.01.1999 or it was made with an employee of the Bank at his residence. Admittedly, no evidence was led by the parties before the District Forum. Therefore, it would be necessary to remit the matter back to the District Forum to record a finding on the aforesaid disputed questions of fact after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the said issue.
FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned District Forum to return the finding as to whether the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - on 18.01.1999, in account no. 2006, was deposited by the complainant during normal banking hours or it was deposited with an employee of the Bank outside the Bank premises. The complainant is permitted to file affidavit by way of evidence in this regard within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to file rebuttal evidence. The parties shall also be entitled to seek liberty from the District Forum for cross -examination of witnesses by way of interrogatories. The District Forum shall pass a fresh order after taking evidence in terms of this direction and recording the finding as directed hereinabove. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The parties shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 18.12.2014. ''Dasti'' under the signature of the Court Master.