DENA BANK vs Sau Sheetal Rajusingh Patil

THE complainant/respondent had a savings bank account with the petitioner -Dena Bank at its Amravati Camp Branch. According to the complainant, she made two cash deposits in the aforesaid account on 31 -01 -2009, the first deposit being of Rs.90,000/ - and the other deposit of Rs.45,000/ -. Both the deposits were entered in the passbook issued to the complainant. However, subsequently, the bank debited the amount of Rs.90,000/ - in the account of the complainant on the ground that no such amount was deposited by her on 31 -01 -2009. The case of the bank is that only an amount of Rs.45,000/ - was deposited by the complainant in her aforesaid account on 31 -01 -2009.

BEING aggrieved from the debit entry of Rs.90,000/ - made in her account the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. Vide order dated 29 -01 -2010 the concerned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/ - to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01 -02 -2009. The bank was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/ - as compensation and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation to the complainant.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 07 -05 -2014 the concerned State Commission maintained the direction for payment of Rs.90,000/ - with interest but reduced the compensation to Rs.5,000/ - while awarding Rs.2,000/ - towards cost of litigation. Being dissatisfied the petitioner bank is before us by way of this revision petition. The only question which arises for our consideration in this petition is as to whether the complainant made two cash deposits one of Rs.90,000/ - and the other of Rs.45,000/ - or only one deposit of Rs.45,000/ - in her account on 31 -01 -2009.

ADMITTEDLY , the complainant did not file, before the District Forum any counter foil evidencing deposit of Rs.90,000/ - with the bank on 31 -01 -2009. On being questioned in this regard the learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant has lost the counter foil of Rs.90,000/ - and that is why it could not be produced before the District Forum. She also states that the bank was informed about the loss of the counter foil on the same day but there is no documentary proof of such intimation having been given to the bank.

DURING the course of arguments we asked the learned counsel for the complainant that as to from where the complainant had obtained cash amounting to Rs.1,35,000/ - which she claimed to have deposited in her savings bank account on 31 -01 -2009. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, is not able to disclose the source from which she arranged the amount of Rs.1,35,000/ -. We must, therefore, draw an adverse inference against the complainant on account of her failure to disclose the source from which she allegedly arranged the amount of Rs.1,35,000/ - which she claims to have deposited in her account on 31 -01 -2009.

ADMITTEDLY , there was already a credit balance of more than Rs.69,000/ - in the account of the complainant as on 31 -01 -2009. The complainant had issued a cheque of Rs.1,10,000/ - in favour of her husband. The deposit of Rs.45,000/ - with the bank was sufficient to honour the cheque of Rs.1,10,000/ - which the complainant had issued in favour of her husband. Even after payment of Rs.1,10,000/ - to her husband there would be a credit balance of more than Rs.4,000/ - in her account. We fail to appreciate what was the necessity for the complainant to make a second deposit of Rs.90,000/ - in her account on 31 -01 -2009 when no further amount, after the first deposit of Rs.45,000/ - was required. This is yet another circumstance, which indicates that in fact the complainant did not make two deposits and she deposited only one amount of Rs.45,000/ - with the bank.

YET another suspicious circumstance in this regard is as to why the husband of the complainant would go twice to the bank for making two cash deposits one of Rs.45,000/ - and the other of Rs.90,000/ -. If he were to deposit Rs.1,35,000/ - in her saving bank account he would have in the ordinary course of human conduct, deposited the entire amount in one go instead of visiting the bank two times for identical purpose.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner bank has drawn our attention to the computerized record of the bank which clearly shows that the credit entry of Rs.90,000/ - in the account of the complainant was reversed by the bank on the same day in the evening. The petitioner bank has also filed an affidavit of Shri Ritesh Singh who was the bank official who received cash from the complainant on 31 -01 -2009. In his affidavit, Shri Ritesh Singh has clearly stated that in the morning of 31 -01 -2009 Shri Rajusingh Patil came to the bank and deposited Rs.45,000/ - in the account of his wife, Smt. Sau Sheetal Rajusingh Patil along with a cheque of Rs.1,10,000/ - in his own account. He has further stated in his affidavit that he had wrongly posted Rs.90,000/ - in the saving bank account of the complainant and in the evening at the time of reconciliation and balancing of cash of the branch, the aforesaid mistake came to be noted and that is why the entry of Rs.90,000/ - was reversed on the same day and credit entry of Rs.45,000/ - was made. The aforesaid affidavit of the bank officer leaves no reasonable doubt that only a sum of Rs.45,000/ - was deposited by the husband of the complainant in her account on 31 -01 -2009.

ANOTHER important aspect in this regard is that despite the bank having taken the stand that no amount of Rs.90,000/ - was deposited with them by the complainant, no FIR was filed by the complainant against the bank officer who allegedly received two amounts one of Rs.45,000/ - and the other of Rs.90,000/ - from the complainant alleging misappropriation of money to the extent of Rs.90,000/ -. Had the claim of the complainant been genuine the first thing she would have done in view of the stand taken by the bank would be to lodge an FIR against the bank official to whom the money was allegedly handed over by her husband on 31 -01 -2009.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the finding recorded by the fora below is perverse since no reasonable person acting on the basis of the aforesaid material and considering the facts and circumstances as noted hereinabove could have returned a finding which the fora below returned in this case. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The professional charges of the Amicus be paid to her as per the scale approved by the Registry.