R.K.Agarwal vs MANAGER, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

WHETHER the respondent Manager, UCO Bank can refuse to pay the amount after its maturity of the deposited amount that was collected by the authorised agent of the said Bank from time to time and entered into the pass book which bears the signature of the Bank authority is the simple and solitary question to be answered in this appeal. 1. Admittedly, the complainant himself, his wife and 3 children deposited the amount from time to time in the Laghu Vikas Yojana which was floated by the Bank itself. Three Bank accounts were opened separately. On maturity of the amount, the complainant approached the Bank whereupon the Bank refused to make the payment on the ground that the agent misappropriated the amount of the several depositors including that of the complainant for which a criminal proceeding has been initiated against the agent namely Jitendra Kumar Verma being Baliapur P.S. Case No. 119/1991 which is still pending. Consequently, the complainant approached the District Forum for payment of maturity amount of Rs. 48,890/- deposited under the aforesaid scheme. Learned District Forum has non-suited the petitioner on the ground that since the fraud has been committed by the agent for which a criminal case is pending, and as such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief under the consumer jurisdiction and accordingly, dismissed the complaint.

THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/appellant has challenged the order and submits that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for refusal of the rightful claim of the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act. In opposition, however, learned Counsel submits that since the agent misappropriated the amount by committing fraud, it cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Courts. It is further submitted the it was incumbent upon the complainant to go to Bank and verify the entries made in the pass book from time to time at least once in a month. Having failed to do so, no relief can be allowed to the complainant. In the light of the rival contentions, we have considered the materials on record. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in terms of the contract, the Bank is equally liable for the omissions and commissions of its agents. Admittedly, the said agent Jitendra Kumar Verma was duly authorised to collect the amount from different investors including the complainant. The amount was collected by the said agent and entered into the pass book which was verified by the Bank from time to time and signed the pass book. It may be mentioned here that liability to pay the amount to the complainant under the scheme is not being denied by the Bank. However, it is alleged that the payment will be made after realisation of the misappropriated amount from the agent, inasmuch as, Rs. 70,000/- has been misappropriated, out of which, Rs. 10,000/- has allegedly been deposited by his father and rest was assured to be refunded shortly.

It has been held repeatedly by the Apex Consumer Court that pendency of the criminal case will not be a ground to refuse the rightful claim of the consumer. However, it is alleged that since fraud has been committed by the agent and as such, such claim cannot be processed under the Consumer Court. There is no element of fraud involved between the parties so far the claim of the complainant is concerned.

FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the respondent Manager, UCO Bank, Makunda, P.O. Pargha, Dist. Dhanbad is liable to pay the maturity amount to the account holders namely the complainant, his wife as well as their three children along with interest permissible under the aforesaid scheme. The Bank is further liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) by way of compensation on account of mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides the cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Before parting with the order, we direct the Manager, UCO Bank to comply with the order within three weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of copy of this order failing which, the complainant will be entitled to execute the order in accordance with the law and in that event, he will be further entitled to the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realisation in addition to the interest allowed above. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties and/or handed over to their respective Counsels forthwith for needful. Appeal allowed.