Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank vs RAKESH KUMAR

FACTUAL matrix of this case in brief are that the Complainant had deposited Rs. 1,01,750 with the Rani Laxmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jhansi, a sister concern of the Punjab National Bank. This Bank was merged by the Government of India and now it is known as "Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank", which is also a sister concern of the Punjab National Bank. The aforesaid amount was invested in FDR for a period of six months. As the request of the complainant for repayment of amount was not considered, he filed a complaint in the year 1999 for recovery of his dues.

THE claim of the complainant was contested by the Bank stating that FDR in question is a forged one which might have been issued in connivance with the then Bank Manager, Mahesh Kumar Verma, whose services have been terminated for misappropriation of huge funds of the Bank. Another version put forth by the Bank was that the complainant had already availed of the facility of overdraft of Rs. 95,000 which was denied by the complainant stating that he had never requested for opening of overdraft account.

THE Bank''s version that the complainant had obtained overdraft facility could not be proved because the Bank has not been able to produce any application of the complainant containing a request for overdraft facility. Further, as his FDR was maturing on 17.9.1998, there would have been no need for him to avail of overdraft facility just five days before its maturity i.e. on 12.9.1998. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the Bank to pay Rs. 1,01,750 along with 12% interest from 17.9.1998 until the payment was made along with litigation cost of Rs. 500. The complainant filed an appeal for enhancement of the rate of interest to 24% p.a. and the litigation charges from Rs. 500 to Rs. 10,000. The Bank filed an appeal with the request to dismiss the complaint.

THE State Commission held that the complainant has not given any cogent reasons for enhancement of the rate of interest and accordingly his request was not considered. However, it awarded Rs. 10,000 towards damages for mental and physical inconvenience caused to the complainant. Further the cost was enhanced from Rs. 500 to 12,000. The appeal of the Bank was dismissed.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission, the Bank has filed this Revision Petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an inquiry has been conducted against 2 -3 officials of the Bank and Shri Mahesh Kumar Verma has been dismissed after finding him guilty of misappropriation of the funds of the Bank. He stated that FDR No. 434534 was a forged document as the whole book containing several sheets including this was either misplaced or stolen from the Bank. He invited our attention to the appeal memorandum wherein it was stated that the complete book of FDR bearing Nos. 434508 to 434600 had been lost about which an FIR was lodged on 24.2.1999, in which two employees of the Bank, viz. (1) Mahesh Kumar Verma, Branch Manager; and (2) Kashi Ram, Daftari were named, on the basis of which criminal proceedings are going on against them.

HENCE it is very clear that the Bank has initiated criminal proceedings against the Manager and the Daftari for the loss of the FDR book. It is also clear from the records that the Bank had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Manager for misappropriation of the funds of the Bank and subsequently his services were terminated.

IN view of the above analysis, we do not see any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. The Bank shall comply with the order of the State Commission within four weeks from today. R.P. dismissed.