Vicarious liability of the bank for the acts of its employees.

ORDER

1. The record indicates that the sole respondent refused to accept notice. In the circumstances, service is deemed complete.

2. Leave granted. The appellant had approached the District Consumer Forum claiming that the deposit of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh & Sixty Thousand) made by her, with the respondent – District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Durga Kund Branch, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) was not permitted to be encashed. The Consumer Forum allowed her complaint and directed a refund of the amount in question along with 15% interest and Rs. 25,000/- as a fine/compensation. The bank approached the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “NCDRC”) in revisional proceedings. The revision was allowed by the impugned order.

3. The relevant part of the findings recorded by the N.C.D.R.C. are as follows:

“6. That it is specifically stated that in this particular case, the original F.D.Rs. were issued on 10.07.1993 but the Day Book and supplementary book of the appellant- bank do not show any amount to have been deposited in the fixed deposit on 10.07.1993 and thus the said F.D.Rs. have been obtained by respondent No. 1 in a fraudulent manner without depositing any amount; however, in the fixed deposit ledger the amount of fixed deposit has been fraudulently shown to have been credited by transfer. These facts were revealed during an enquiry conducted by an officer of the Bank.

7. That it may also be mentioned here that the original F.D. Rs. Issued on 10.07.1993 bear the following numbers –

13/2, 13/3, 13/4, and 13/5; which do not bear the signature of the Manager who is the only competent authority to issue F.D.Rs. on behalf of the appellant- Bank who was not authorized to issue an F.D.R. on behalf of the appellant- bank.”

4. The record shows that the District Forum was satisfied that the appellant had in fact handed over Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh & Sixty Thousand) to the bank’s official. This was reflected in the bank’s ledger. The record further discloses that an inquiry committee had been set up by the bank which recommended initiation of criminal proceedings, the bank in fact adopted that course. Even the N.C.D.R.C. was aware of this but proceeded to state that no chargesheet was filed. It is also a matter of record that the F.D.Rs. were renewed from time to time. In these circumstances, the N.C.D.R.C. findings upsetting to the finding of facts cannot be sustained, – in terms of the record. The bank was vicariously liable for the acts committed by its employees.

5. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order is set aside. The findings and the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Varanasi in Case No. 105/1995 dated 20th October, 1997 is hereby restored. The respondent – Bank shall comply with the terms of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’s order within eight weeks failing which the appellant is free to initiate execution proceedings.

6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.