ORDER :

G.S. Singhvi, J.

This petition is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission') whereby a batch of revisions filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short, 'the State Commission') were dismissed.

2. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. The respondent claimed that he had opened savings bank accounts in the bank and deposited certain amount but when he wanted to withdraw the amount, the bank officials did not entertain his request. He further averred that some bank officials fabricated the records and withdrew the amount deposited in his account and for the acts of its officers/officials, the bank was liable. In two cases, the complainant alleged that he had deposited certain amount in fixed deposit but when he wanted to withdraw the same, the bank authorities declined to entertain his request.

3. The petitioners contested the complaint by asserting that the bank cannot be held liable for the wrong doings of some officers/officials. The petitioners relied upon the entries in the ledgers showing withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant and from the FDRs and pleaded that the complainant cannot take advantage of the absence of the corresponding entries in the passbooks, more so because he had himself made interpolations and inflated the amount deposited in the bank.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short, 'the District Forum') allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay the amount shown in the passbooks and FDR receipts of the complainant and also pay interest at the rate of 10%, compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-.

5. The appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the State Commission, which referred to large number of judgments including the judgment of this Court in State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, (1978) 3 SCC 399. The observations made by the State Commission in the case of Naib Chand are extracted below:

"Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties we do not find any force in the contention of the appellants-opposite parties. The authorities relied upon by him are not attracted to the facts of the present case. It is a case where the officials of the bank have been charged for committing fraud embezzlement of the bank funds. On holding of departmental enquiry these officials of the bank were found guilty for committing of fraud and embezzlement with the customer/loanee who have deposited the amount with the bank we are therefore of the view that the authorities produced by the complainant reveals that the relation inter-se the Master and the servant who can be held vicariously liable for their act committed on behalf of their Master/Bank. The authorities titled as State Bank of India v. Smt. Shyama Devi, AIR 1978 SC 1263, Bank of India v. Deepak Jaiswal, 2002 (1) Civil Procedure Code 579, and Allahabad Bank v. Shiv Swarup Srivastav, 2007(1) Civil Procedure Code 296, (supra) are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. The complainant cannot be put to financial loss despite the fact that he never withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,30,500/- from his account.

It is often noticed that the officials of the bank have now started committing fraud with various customers who deposit the amount. In order to curb this menace stringent & hard punishment should be awarded to such officials who are not faithful to their Masters (Bank) while discharging their official duties. The bank is vicariously liable to adjust the amount in the loan account of the complainant as ordered by the District Forum. We are, therefore, of the view that the complainant has been rightly granted the relief by the District Consumer Forum, Ambala with res