Mohammed Salim vs State Bank of India

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 18th July, 2001 in Complaint No. 324/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainants/appellants.

ACCORDING to the averments in the complaint, the complainants had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the respondent/Bank on 18.9.1998 for a period of 75 months. A fixed deposit receipt bearing No. SD/A/35185364 was given to them. It was further averred that the maturity date of the said fixed deposit was 18.12.2004. It was further averred that since the complainants were in need of money, they approached the respondent/Bank for grant of loan on the basis of the said fixed deposit receipt. The complainants were then informed by the officials of the respondent/Bank that the said fixed deposit receipt was a forged one and that it was not authoritatively issued by the respondent/Bank. The original receipt was retained by the respondent/Bank after giving an acknowledgement to the complainants. The prayer of the complainants was that the respondent/Bank be directed to pay the amount on the said FDR with interest thereon. The complaint was resisted by the respondent/Bank. In its written version respondent/Bank averred that no amount was deposited by the complainants in the Bank in respect of the said FDR and that it was not issued by the respondent/Bank. It was further averred that an employee of the respondent/Bank namely Shamshul Haq had stolen some of the blank FDRs and committed forgery by issuing the same to various persons after receiving the amount from them personally. It was alleged that the receipt produced by the complainants also appears to have been issued by the said Shamshul Haq who was personally acquainted with the respondent/Bank without the complainants depositing the amount thereof with the respondent/Bank in the regular course of business. It was further averred that the respondent/Bank was not liable to pay any amount towards the said receipt.

The Distt. Forum found that the receipt was issued unauthorisedly by Shamshul Haq, against whom departmental action has been initiated. It was also held that the respondent/Bank has not committed any deficiency in service. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed.

IT may be noticed that the complainants have produced the photo copy of the FDR. IT is alleged by the respondent that no amount was deposited by the complainants in the respondent/Bank, with regard to the said receipt. The complainants have not produced any documents to show that the amount thereof was actually deposited by them with the respondent/Bank. Copy of the account book produced by the respondent/Bank shows that no amount was deposited towards the said receipt and that the said receipt was not issued in favour of the complainants/appellants on 18.9.1998 as alleged by the complainants. Since the amount has not been deposited by the complainants, with the respondent/Bank, in the regular course of business, the respondent/Bank cannot be held liable to pay the amount of the FDR allegedly issued by one of its employees by committing fraud or theft of blank FDRs. In the above context, it may be noticed that the respondent/Bank has also initiated departmental action against the said employee and he has been placed under suspension. A report has been lodged with the police. In the circumstances, it is a case of alleged forgery by one of the employees of the respondent/Bank and since the transaction in the regular course of business did not take place, the respondent/Bank cannot be held liable for payment of the amount of the FDR by refusing to accept and honour the said FDR. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent/Bank committed deficiency in service by refusing to accept and honour the said FDR. The Distt. Forum, therefore, was justified in holding so. There is no reason for interference in the impugned order. This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal dismissed.