Punjab National Bank vs RATNA BANERJEE

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24th February, 1994 in Case No. 23 of 1993 passed by the District Redressal Forum, Nadia, Krishnanagar inter alia directing the appellant/bank to credit the amount Rs. 13,850/- in the account of the complainant/respondent which was deposited with the appellant/bank on 27.8.1993 within 15 days from the date of the order thereafter to honour the account payee cheque for the sum of Rs. 20,000/- dated 27.9.1993 drawn in the name of Jiban Krishna Pal if it is presented to the bank before 26.2.1994 and it was further directed by the District Forum, Nadia to allow the interest on the deposit amount at the usual bank rate in the complainant accounts.

THE appellant assailed the said judgment and order dated 24.2.1994 passed by the District Forum, Nadia, inter alia on the ground that the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia, Krishnanagar has failed to consider the provisions of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in relation to service defined therein; secondly, that the dispute in question is under subjudice in a criminal case under Sec. 474/420 I.P.C. in Case No. 449 of 1993 before the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar; thirdly on the ground that the money in dispute has not been deposited with the appellant/bank as per banking norms/rules and procedures and the pass book had been tendered by the respondent to the appellant/bank for entries of the transactions even after constructive notice published by the appellant in the local newspaper, Nadia Bazar, dated 10th January, 1994; fourthly, that the documents relied upon by the respondents as regards deposit of money with the bank i.e. the counter foil of the pay-in-slip and the pass book have not been verified with the records maintained by the Appellant/Bank. That the Appellant/Bank prayed for setting aside of the order dated 24.2.1994 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Nadia on the aforesaid grounds.

The Complainant who is the respondent in the instant case seriously contested the appeal filing written version inter alia contending that the appeal is misconceived and depicts a mis-conception of law by the appellant. The purpose of filing the appeal by the appellant is only to harass the respondent.

THE respondent denied all material allegations raised by the appellant and asserted that the grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal are all mis-conceived and as such they are liable to be rejected. The respondent categorically denies that1 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of like nature raised in the instant case as per "service" defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

THE service has defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act specifically includes the provisions of facilities in connection with banking; secondly it was defined by the respondent that the pending criminal case against one of the employees of appellant/bank for defrauding it has in no manner any nexus with the complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia. In the said criminal case, the complainant/respondent is in no way involved and this is the internal affair of cheating, defrauding money of the appellant/bank by its own employee. It is contended by the respondent that the allegation of the appellant/bank for providing the documents of the pay-in-slip and the pass book duly recorded the deposit of Rs. 13,850/- on 27.9.1993 is merely an attempt to shrug off its liability to the respondent. Particularly in view that the pay-in-slip bears the seal and signature of the receiving staff of the appellant/bank at the bank''s counter and subsequent embezzlement by the said staff in no way be the liability of the said account holder and the action of the staff of the appellant/bank cannot be shifted to its customer for which she is no way responsible for the fraudulent acts of the said bank employee.

IT is contended by the respondent that the District Forum, Nadia is very rightly appreciated the mental pain and loss of prestige suffered by the respondent for bouncing the cheque issued by her to her valuable customer for which she is entitled to damages of Rs. 15,000/-. In the circumstances, the respondent prayed for rejection of the appeal with cost as per provisions of Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. DECISION

HAVING heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and upon perusal of the materials on record, we hold that the respondent deposited Rs. 13,850/- on 27.8.1993 in New Bank of India and her total balance as shown in the pass book was Rs. 23,989.49. The said New Bank of India amalgamated with the appellant/bank on 4.9.1993 while the appellant/bank took over all assets and liabilities of the New Bank of India in process of amalgamation and/or taking over of the New Bank of India by the appellant/bank.

As per provisions of law as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, it explicitly includes facilities in connection with banking service. So it is beyond any doubt that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has got full jurisdiction to entertain complaint of such nature as argued by the complainant /respondent. It is now settled law that bank customers are consumers as defined under Consumer Protection Act and there is a catena of decisions pronounced by National Commission in this regard. We have no hesitation to accept Complainant/Respondent as Consumer of the appellant bank as per provisions of C.P. Act, 1986.

THE pay-in-slip and the pass book proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the complainant/respondent deposited Rs. 13850/- on 27.8.1993 with New Bank of India and the same was credited in the pass book of the complainant/respondent, wherein it was shown the total balance of Rs. 23,989.49 as on 27.9.1993. Therefore, the issuance of cheque for Rs. 20,000/- by the complainant/respondent ought to have been encashed by the appellant/ bank, in view that the complainant/respondent had sufficient funds to encash the cheque issued in favour of her customer namely Jiban Krishna Pal and such refusal to honour the cheque issued by the respondent/complainant having sufficient funds in her account is a serious negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/bank.

THE criminal case conducted by the appellant/bank against its own employee namely Shyamal Kumar Ghosh who mis-appreciated and cheated the New Bank of India by way of forgery of fund etc. has got no connection with the affairs of the complainant/respondent who is a bona fide customer of the bank and has suffered loss for bouncing of her cheque issued in name of Jiban Krishna Pal inspire of having sufficient fund in her credit. Further, it appears to us that Sri Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, employee of New Bank of India has committed suicide on 7.11.1993 and thereafter the criminal case instituted against that Shyamal Ghosh an alleged cheater becomes infructuous and cannot be proceeded with and for the said infructuous criminal proceeding, the complainant cannot wait for long to have her money credited in her account as per Banking Rules and Laws. The appellant/bank or its constituent M/s. New Bank of India which merged into the appellant/bank cannot escape the liability of the deposits made by the complainant/respondent and also cannot escape the vicarious liability for bouncing the cheque of the complainant/ respondent for no fault on her part.

THE allegation of proving the documents namely the pay-in-slip on the pass book does not carry any weight as the pay-in-slip bearing the seal and signature of the staff sitting in bank counter and receiving the money and subsequently that money credited into the pass book of the complainant/respondent do not leave any scope to further prove the documents.

HENCE, the appeal fails and dismissed on contest, the judgment and order dated 24.2.1994 passed by the Ld. District Forum is confirmed by us as the validity of the cheque issued by the complainant/respondent to one Jiban Krishna Pal stands invalid due to expiry of 6 months from the date of issuing the cheque for which the complainant/respondent may issue a fresh cheque on that account, if that is necessary and the appellant/bank will honour the cheque as per banking procedure if issued by the complainant/respondent for the second time. Otherwise entire amount of Rs. 13,850/- together with interest @ 16% p.a. be credited at once in the account of the respondent to enable her to withdraw the same. We award cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant/respondent payable by the appellant/bank within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. Appeal dismissed.