MANAGER, UCO BANK, JUANPAL BRANCH vs PRADEEP KUMAR MAHARANA

THE present appeal is by the UCO Bank, Kuanpal Branch in the District of Cuttack against the order of the District Forum, Cuttack.

THE complainants in all these above cases deposited certain amount on daily collection basis under "Laghu Bachat Yojana" floated by the Bank vide complainants'' Account Numbers LBY/D/1062, LBY/D/962, LBY/D/1078 and LBY/D/950 respectively, issued on 23.2.1993, 8.6.1992, 17.4.1993 and 13.5.1992 respectively. THE amount sought to be collected daily used to be entered into the pass-book provided to the complainants. Respondent No. 2-Ramesh Chadra Nayak was the collecting agent admittedly authorised by the UCO Bank. He collected the money from the complainants and till September 1995 the total amount of Rs. 9,430/- was deposited in A/c. No. LBY/D/1062 till February, 1995 the total amount of Rs. 14,825/- was deposited in A/c. No. LBY/D/962 till September, 1995 the total amount of Rs. 15,880/- was deposited in A/c. No. LBY/D/1078 till August, 1995, the total amount of Rs. 21,200/- was deposited in A/c. No. IBY/D/950 respectively. Thereafter the said agent did not come for collection. It was directed that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,195/- in C.D. Appeal No. 677/1997, Rs. 3,570/- in C.D. Appeal No. 678/1997, Rs. 5,890/- in C.D. Appeal No. 679/1997, Rs. 8,590/- in C.D. Appeal No. 678/1997 respectively, thereby misappropriating the rest of the amount. When the complainants knew this they approached the Bank for withdrawal of the entire amount but the Bank refused to oblige advancing a case that they are not liable to pay this.

Heard Mr. S.K. Ghose, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.K. Mahanty the learned Counsel for the complainants. Perused the materials on record and the impugned order. The impugned order is an elaborate order. The Forum has discussed all the aspects of the case. On the admitted case that the R-2 was appointed by the Bank as the agent, the District has rightly held that the Bank would be liable to pay the amount. We for ourself have examined the records. Fact remains the respondent-2 was the authorised agent of the Bank. The Bank has also proceeded against the said person in the Criminal side. Since the said R-2 at the relevant time was under the employment of the Bank, the Bank would be vicariously liable for the misconduct of the agent. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly held the Bank is liable to pay the entire amount to the complainants.

MR. Chose, the learned Counsel for the Bank has stressed the point that the complainants failed to prove that the ''initials'' given in the pass-books were that of the authorised agent, i.e., R-2 of the Bank. It was further submitted vide Note of Submission that one Trilochan Nayak who was not authorised by the Bank was the person to whom the complainants paid the amount for deposit for which the Bank could not be held liable. To this we may point out that the name of this Trilochan Nayak is disclosed only during the course of the argument but on a careful reading of the writte version, we do not find his name so mentioned by the Bank. No doubt it is mentioned in the written version that the amount has been collected by someone else. This was a vague assertion which cannot be accepted at this belated stage. Even assuming this fact is to be correct yet no material has been placed by the Bank to indicate that acutally Trilochan Nayak was receiving the amount directly from the complainant or that he did not hand over these amounts so collected from the complainants to the said authorised agent of the Bank i.e., R-2. The learned Counsel further has relied on a case of State Bank of India v. Smt. Shyama Devi, reported in AIR 1978 SC page 1263 to sustain his argument that if an account holder of the Bank paid certain amount to the employee of his Bank for crediting it to his/her amount, the onus was on the depositor to show that he/she paid the amount to the employee of the Bank and the same was received by that employee in the course of his employment with the Bank. While we have no quarrel over this proposition, we are of the view that this case is not applicable to the present case. The Bank had provided the pass-books to the complainants. This fact is admitted. The Bank had employed the respondent No. 2 as an agent. This fact is also admitted. Now if the Bank comes forward with a case that initial in the pass-book in token of the receipt of the amounts did not belong to the authorised agent, in other words they were forged it was for them to prove that they were not the signatures of the said authorised agent. The complainants by producing the pass-books with the initials of the authorised agent which we accept to be correct, have discharged the initial onus which should have been dispelled by the Bank by giving counter evidence. This has not been done. We accept the finding of the District Forum that the Bank is liable to pay the amount. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainants so far as this Commission is concerned. Appeals dismissed.