SUNDER LAL vs Syndicate Bank

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), against order dated 24.11.1997, passed by District Forum-II, in Complaint Case No. 853/96 entitled Shri Sunder Lal v. THE Manager, Syndicate Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Another.

THE facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that the appellant Shri Sunder Lal had a Saving Bank Account No. 44245 with respondent No. 1, Syndicate Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and there was a balance of Rs. 26,361.75 in the above said account. THE appellant needed some money and for withdrawing the same from his account he presented a withdrawal slip before the Bank but he was informed by the Bank official that there was less amount of money in his account than what he wanted to withdraw. On inquiry the appellant was told that a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was withdrawn from his account on 23.11.1995, another sum of Rs. 8,000/- was withdrawn on 25.11.1995 and another sum of Rs. 13,000/- was withdrawn on 27.11.1995. All these withdrawals were through withdrawal slips. THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that before payment on the basis of withdrawal slip it should be accompanied by Pass Book. However, in disregard of this rule the staff of OP No. 1 made the payments on the basis of withdrawal slip though the Pass Book did not accompany the same, which was actually in the possession of the appellant. THE appellant complained about it to the Manager of the Syndicate Bank but the officials misbehaved with him and threatened him with dire consequences. THE matter was reported to the police at Connaught Place Police Station. THE appellant also sent a legal notice to the O.Ps. and when nothing was done he filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in Service on the part of OP No. 1 and claimed a sum of Rs. 81,650/- including compensation and damages, besides the money wrongly paid by the respondent on the basis of withdrawal slips. The respondents did not appear before the District Forum and the case proceeded ex parte against them before the District Forum However, after considering evidence produced by the appellant, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order. The operative portion of the same reads as under: "The complainant has also stated that he has already reported the matter to the Police. Police must be investigating the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the complainant. Under the circumstances, it is ordered that in case it is found by the police that the complainant did not withdraw his money on 23.11.1995 (Rs. 3,500/-) on 25.11.1995 (Rs. 8,000/-) and on 27.11.1995 (Rs. 13,000/-), the O.P. shall refund this whole amount to the complainant along with interest at the usual Bank rate considering that the money was never withdrawn and shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as costs and compensation. In case it so found, the O.P. shall be at liberty to realise the amount from the person to whom it was wrongly delivered. In case however the police finds that the complainant had withdrawn the money through the above stated three withdrawal slips, the complaint would stand dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties by post."

The District Forum in its order also stated that there is evidence that the appellant had a credit balance of Rs. 26,361.75 p. on 1.1.1995 but subsequently thrice the amount of Rs. 3,500/-, Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- was withdrawn through withdrawal slips from the account of the appellant. No entries were found in the Pass Book after 1995. The learned District Forum also summoned the O.P. again to find out the truth but the respondent never appeared. It is under these circumstances that the above order was passed by the learned District Forum.

THE appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the ground that the District Forum has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law and has left it to the discretion of the police. the entire order is based on the police investigation and is a conditional order. THE District Forum has ordered that in case it is found that the appellant did not withdraw the money, the respondent shall refund the whole amount to the appellant with interest and shall also pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost and compensation. THE learned District Forum also stated that in case the police find that the appellant had withdrawn the money through above stated three withdrawal slips, the complaint shall stand dismissed. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that the withdrawal slips were never shown to him by the respondents in spite of his written complaints and the same were also not produced before the District Forum or before this Commission. THE learned District Forum has left the appellant on the mercy of the police and thus the learned District Forum has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Forum under the Act. At the time of filing the appeal the respondents have filed an affidavit that the original withdrawal slips have not been found and either the same has been lost or misplaced. It is very relevant to note that if the withdrawal slips have been lost or misplaced how the respondent has filed photocopies of the withdrawal slips before this Commission on 3.9.2002. It leads to the inference that the withdrawal slips are in the possession of the respondent Bank but they have intentionally not produced the same for the reasons best known to it. THE contention of the appellant is that an adverse inference should be drawn against the respondents who have intentionally not produced the original withdrawal slips. We have heard both the parties and have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides. It is not disputed that the appellant was having a Savings Bank Account No. 44245 with respondent No. 1 Bank and it is mentioned in the order of the District Forum that there was credit balance of Rs. 26,361.75 on 1.11.1995. However, when the complainant wanted to withdraw money from his account he came to know that thrice money had been withdrawn from his account on the basis of withdrawal slips. According to the complainant, he never withdrew that amount and the respondent on the basis of forged signatures on the withdrawal slip had made the payment. It has further been argued that under the Rules the Pass Book should accompany with the withdrawal form and if the Bank makes payment without the Pass Book and that also not once but thrice, it certainly amounts to deficiency in service and collusion of the Bank with the person withdrawing money on the basis of withdrawal slip. The explanation given by the respondent in this connection is far from satisfactory. The respondents have also failed to produce the withdrawal slips so as to prove that the same bear the signatures of the appellant. Merely saying that the withdrawal slips bore the signatures of the appellant cannot reasonably be accepted. The withdrawal slips should have been safely retained by the respondents especially when there was a dispute and it came to the notice of the respondents within a very short period that there was some dispute regarding the payment made on the basis of three withdrawal slips dated 23.11.1995, 25.11.1995 and 27.11.1995. The respondents have been careless and negligent in this respect also. The very fact that huge amounts were withdrawn on alternate days raises suspicion. In such a case, the Bank staff should have insisted for the Pass Book before making payments. This has not been done in this case. Hence, in our view, the respondent Bank was deficient in service in not following the rules at the time of making payments on the basis of withdrawal slips which should be accompanied by the Pass Book. Accordingly, we have found the respondent Bank liable for deficiency in service. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Forum has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the Act and passed order whereby the appellant has been left at the mercy of the police investigation. From a perusal of the order of the District Forum it is apparent that the learned District Forum has given no clear finding and the matter has been left undecided on the result of police investigation. The learned District Forum should have decided the case on merits especially when the case was preceded ex parte and the respondent did not appear in spite of repeated notices. The order of the District Forum that if during the police investigation it was found that the complainant did not withdraw the money, the Bank should pay the money to the appellant with interest. otherwise the complaint stands dismissed is self-contradictory order. It is in fact no order in the eyes of law and the order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.

IN view of our finding that the respondent Bank has been deficient in service in making payment without following the rules, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.11.1997, passed by District Forum, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay to the appellant Rs. 24,500/-, wrongly withdrawn from the appellant''s account on the basis of withdrawal slips with 10% interest from the date when the amount is said to have been withdrawn till payment. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to the appellant. The above order should be complied with within 60 days, failing which the appellant shall be free to move an application under Sections 25/27 of the Act, as the appellant may be advised. The above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed.