The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the bank and its manager under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for misappropriating fixed deposits and displaying deficiency in service.

Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—Two sisters Gitaben and Minaben and their mother Raiben had an occasion to file Consumer Protection Case No. 245 of 1995 before the learned Mahsana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for recovery of the amount of their fixed deposits in the total sum of Rs. 2 lakhs (four fixed deposits of Rs. 50,000/- each). The fixed deposit receipts were taken from the opponent No. 1 Bank of Baroda at the time when opponent No. 2 was working as its Manager and since he happened to be the tenant in the house of the complainants, the complainants relied upon him in the matter of making of the deposits. Complainant No. 2’s name was subsequently added in the fixed deposits. The complainants signed different papers as required and submitted by opponent No. 2 Manager. The fixed deposits were maturing for payment on 6.2.1995. However, the complainants received letter dated 15.3.1994 inquiring of the complainants why statement of overdraft account was required, to whom they had given Rs. 2 lakhs, whether the amount was given in cash and whether the complainants had the fixed deposit receipts. The complainants were surprised and shocked to receive such a letter. On making inquiry from opponent No. 1 Bank they found that the amount of fixed deposit was withdrawn by some one on account of gross negligence on the part of concerned opponent. The complainants alleged that they were not given any cheque book and they did not give any consent for withdrawal of amount of fixed deposit. The complainants had given application dated 5.3.1994 and notice dated 1.7.1994 to the opponents and opponent No. 1 Bank gave reply to the notice. Opponent No. 1 Bank resisted the complaint inter alia admitting that the complainants deposited Rs. 2 lakhs for a period of three years with opponent Bank. But they had obtained overdraft against the fixed deposits. Opponent Bank had also alleged that pre-payment was made on 7.3.1992 from the overdraft account of the complainants and nothing was remaining payable by the opponent No. 1 Bank to the complainants. Opponent No. 2 resisted the complaint inter alia admitting the fact that he was working as Manager in opponent No. 1 Bank and that he handed over the charge to another Manager on 2.12.1993 after office hours. He added that there was an opportunity for obtaining overdraft immediately against fixed deposits in the scheme known as ‘Fast Access Scheme’. The fixed deposit receipt is to be credited in the overdraft account as per the conditions of such scheme. Duly discharged fixed deposit receipts are to be taken as security in the Bank. The consumers are not given receipts in such an event. The payment of the fixed deposit receipt is credited to the overdraft account. The consumers are given pass book and cheque book and not the fixed deposit receipts. In this background opponent No. 2 alleged that the conduct of the complainants was doubtful and the complaint was filed against him after he was transferred from concerned branch of opponent No. 1 Bank. According to him as complainants had with them the fixed deposit receipts they tried to defraud the Bank. The work of preparing the receipts is of Clerk. After the receipts are prepared the Accountant signs and then Manager signs. Opponent No. 2 could not understand why the opponent No. 1 Bank gave reply after a long time. He also asserted that it was not understandable why the fixed deposit receipts were not produced at the time of claiming the amount. He, therefore, alleged that the complainants and the Bank falsely implicated him in the fraud.

2. After considering the material placed on record and appreciating the evidence, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complainants were consumers in the eye of law, that the amount of fixed deposits in question was misappropriated without the knowledge of the complainants and the opponents thereby displayed deficiency in service, that the opponents are liable to pay the amount of t