Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant is having a Savings Bank Account with the opposite party for over a decade. On 10-6-1981, a sum of Rs. 38,000/- has been debited against him in the account. He did not withdraw this amount. As soon as he came to know about the same, he wrote to the opposite party and claimed reversal of the entry. There were repeated reminders. There were also several discussions between the complainant and the opposite party. On 23-10-1991 the Chief Manager of the bank has written to the complainant that the alleged unauthorized debit of Rs. 38,000/- is pending in the Court and as soon as the same was completed, the matter would be taken for decision. There was no further response and hence this complaint for treating the said amount of Rs. 38,000/- as one deposited under Cumulative Deposits Scheme and pay the said amount to the complainant and directing the opposite party to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh and pay expenses amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.

3. In its counter the opposite party did not challenge the unauthorized debit entry, but it contended that the claim made after a lapse of 11 years is barred by time.

4. Exhibits A1 to A8 alone are marked. Proof affidavits are filed.

5. Exhibit A1 is the duplicate copy of the pass book of the complainant. On 10-6-1981 a sum of Rs. 38,000/- is debited against him. According to the complainant, he did not withdraw this money and this is a false entry. This allegation is not denied in the countrer statement. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party and the Bank Officer present before us admitted that a member of the staff has made this false entry and misappropriated the amount and a criminal prosecution is pending against him. It is however represented that the opposite party has recommended to the Head Office for reversing this entry and the matter is pending at the Head Office. There is therefore no doubt that this is a false entry of debit against the complainant and the complainant is entitled the said amount.

6. It is unfortunate that a nationalised bank like the opposite party has raised a plea of limitation instead of forthwith correcting the entry, for which the responsibility lies sorely on its shoulders. But the plea of limitation has also no substance. There is no time limit for reversing an incorrect entry in the pass book of the complainant and in the accounts of the opposite party. Further the relationship between the consumer, who deposits money in the bank and the banker is that of depositor and deposited, and under Article 22 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is three years when the demand is made. The complainant has been all along demanding only for reversing the entry and not for the money. It is for the first time he has claimed the money in this complaint and limitation can commence only from the date of the complaint. Again under Exhibit A7 dated 23-10-1991, the Chief Manager of the Bank has written to the complainant that the matter is pending in the Court and it would be decided thereafter. We therefore find that no question of limitation arises in this case.

7. The complainant is entitled to get back the sum of Rs. 38,000/- with interest thereon at 12% from the date of debit entry till the date of repayment. He has also been put to much pain and agony and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation will be just and proper.

8. In the result we order as follows :

1. The opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 38,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 10-6-1981 till repayment.

2. The opposite party shall also pay to the Complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

3. The opposite party shall also pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

Complaint allowed with costs.

–