G.R. SINGH vs Punjab National Bank

THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the opposite party was directed to pay the deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% and also to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainants have their saving account No. 444 in the opposite party, Bank. In the said account, there was a balance of Rs. 34,399/- on 22.9.2000, the entry of which has been done in the passbook issued by the opposite party. On 22.9.2000, the complainants were informed of the embezzlement by the officials of the bank in the money of the account holders. THE opposite party asked the complainants to get their passbook tallied with the ledger of the Bank and the complainants immediately got their passbook tallied with the ledger. On tallying the passbook with the ledger, they could know that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by them on 9.9.1999 and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by them on 10.3.2000 has not been entered by the officials of the Bank in the ledger, although the entry of the same has been made in the passbook. THE complainants and other account holders in whom accounts there was embezzlement requested the Bank and the asked the Bank that they are going to take legal action against the alleged officials of the Bank and the Bank assured to return the money of the account holders along with interest. On 9.11.2000 the officials of the Bank assured the complainants and other account holders that the inquiry is going on and the report has been lodged in the police station against the alleged official and they again assured to return the amount of the account holders. But even after 2 years the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has not been paid to the complainants nor any assurance has been given regarding the payment of the said amount. THE opposite party is liable to pay the amount of the complainants. THE alleged act of the opposite party is criminal breach of trust and unfair trade practice. THE complainants have made a complaint to the Finance Ministry and the senior officers of the Bank. THE complainants also grave a notice to the Bank through their Advocate but the Bank neither paid the amount of the complainants nor gave the reply of the notice. THEn the complaint was filed. The opposite party, Bank filed written statement and alleged that of the said account of the complainants no service charges have been charged nor any demand has been made. The complaint of the complainants does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is not legally maintainable. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainants to file the present complaint. According to the records of the Bank, no transaction has been made of the disputed amount in the said account of the complainants and if transaction would have been made, the same would have been entered in Saving Fund Sheet. This shows no entry has been made of the said amount and according to the record of the Bank, there was a balance of Rs. 14,820/- in the account of the complainants, which is right and actual balance of their accounts. They have lodged a FIR before the CBI, Dehradun on 19.7.2001 for embezzlement of the accounts against Sh. Manmohan Puri (Bank Clerk-cum-Cashier) and the investigation is pending with the CBI, Dehradun. It is further alleged that CBI, Dehradun vide their letter dated 7.12.2001 asked for the original ledger sheet, etc. for investigation from the Bank and the Senior Manager of the Bank has given them all the said documents and they are with the CBI. As the investigation is going on by CBI and as such till the completion of the investigation and handing over of the documents by the CBI, no decision can be taken. It further said that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum allowed the complaint as above, against which order the complainants have filed the above appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. Under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, Banking has been considered as a service and any person who is availing this service comes in the category of consumer. The Bank earns from the deposits of the customers, which is consideration for service. Therefore, it is clear that the complainants are the consumers of the opposite party, and the complaint shall lie before the Consumer Forum. The opposite party has admitted in its written statement and affidavit that one of its employees Sh. Manmohan Puri has embezzled with the Bank and he has misappropriated the money of many consumers. The complainants have filed only one receipt regarding the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- being made by them on 10.3.2000. The photocopy of which is on record. The complainants have not produced the receipt regarding the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- made on 9.9.1999. When an account holder deposits the amount with the Bank, the total liability becomes of the dealing clerk/employee of the Bank, who has received the said deposit and has signed the receipt. The account holder never asks the dealing clerk/employee to make the entry of the said deposit in the ledger. It is the duty of the dealing employee of the Bank to make the entry of the said deposit in the ledger. When the amount is deposited, the duty of the consumer is over. He has to do nothing after this. To get the entry of the amount deposited by the consumer done in the ledger is entirely the duty of the employee of the Bank. The photocopy of the passbook has been filed. In the said book, there is a clearcut entry of deposit of Rs. 10,000/- on 9.9.1999 and of Rs. 10,000/- on 10.3.2000 and it has been made under the signature of the bank employee. If the deposit amount is not entered in the ledger, that is not a matter of concern for the account holder. The deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was also not shown in the ledger. The account holders do not keep the receipt of the deposit with them after depositing the amount for a long time. The contention of the Bank that they are liable to pay the amount after the investigation of the CBI is over or after the decision of the criminal case by the appropriate Court is without any basis. There is no force in this argument that a poor account holder who has deposited his hard earned money in the Bank has to wait for several years till the completion of the investigation or the decision of the Court to get refund of his deposit amount. The employee of the Bank is the agent of the Bank and it is settled principle of law that for every act of the agent, the principal is liable. Therefore, the Bank is liable to pay the entire amount deposited of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant. As the complainants have not been paid their deposit amount even after 2 years of the deposit, therefore, they should also get interest on this amount and as ordered by the learned Forum they should get on this amount @ 12%. The complainants have unnecessarily been dragged into litigation, therefore, the order of cost is also justified. The net result is that the order under appeal is to be modified and the complainants are entitled to the refund of both their deposits.

THE net result is that the complaint is to be allowed also for the deposit of which no receipt has been produced. Merely because receipt has not been produced, the complaint should not have been rejected for refund of that amount. No clerk or Bank will make entry in the passbook without any deposit. If the deposit has been shown in the passbook and the employee of the Bank embezzles that amount that is the liability of the Bank. THErefore, the complaint should have been allowed in total. ORDER THE appeal is hereby partly allowed. THE complaint is allowed in total. THE opposite party, Bank is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 12% payable from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. THE order of cost as passed by the learned Forum is also upheld. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.