IMPORTANT POINT
Bank should act fairly.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Mrs. S. Vasudharini, the complainant obtained Kamadhenu Deposit Scheme on 10.10.2006. According to her, she made a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for which she made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of cash and for the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- she paid the same through cheque. The Canara Bank- the Opposite Party issued the Kamadhenu Deposit Scheme i.e. FDR in favour of the complainant in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On maturity, she got back Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest in the sum of Rs. 7187/-.

2. In the month of September 2009, it transpired that the complainant had not deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The Canara Bank/OP unilaterally debited the sum of Rs. 61,383/- without any written communication. She approached the Bank and it replied that the amount paid in cash on 10.10.2006 was not credited in her account book and it is to be presumed that no cash in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by her in cash.

3. The defense set up by the petitioner/OP is that she could not produce the receipt of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- or any other evidence to show that the she paid the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The Bank admits that it realized the mistake and debited the amount of Rs. 61383/-. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that prior notice was sent to her. The notice was given by the Bank on 25.09.2009. On the same day the petitioner had suo moto debited the amount without hearing the complainant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.

4. However, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to return a sum of Rs. 61,383/- with interest @ 9% p.a. alongwith compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental agony.

5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that this is a bonafide mistake on the part of the Bank. Although, this stand was not taken in the written version, yet, the counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a mistake due to upgradation in the computer system. He further submits that a departmental enquiry was held against two persons, namely, N. Kalyanaraman and Meena Chandrasekar but no action was taken against them as is apparent from theORDER itself. There is no evidence that the matter was reported to the highest authorities. The counsel for the petitioner lastly, pleaded that if the respondent produces the receipt or any other evidence, she would have a very good case. In the absence of the evidence, the case of the complainant falls flat.

6. All these arguments have left no impression upon this Commission. OP has committed an egregious mistake. First of all, how they gave the Kamadhenu FDR without receiving the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The story propounded by it does not just stack up. Secondly, no action was taken against the wrong doers. It appears that the Senior authorities were working in cahoots with the Junior Officers. As a matter of fact junior officers are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each for the negligence, inaction and passivity on their party. Again, there is no evidence that such matter was reported to the highest authority of the Canara Bank. It appears that the Bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. The attitude of authorities adds a shocking dimension to the situation. Whether the facts of this case have been hidden from the in-charge of the Bank?

7. Again, there is another deficiency on the part of the petitioner i.e. they remained silent for a period of three years. No action was taken by them. They did not know that the amount was not paid for the last three years. Perhaps there is no audit examination. All the matters are done in a happy go lucky manner.

8. Again the amount of Rs. 61,383/- was suo moto debited from the account of the petitioner arbitrarily and capriciously. The Bank had no courtesy to inform the complaint that this mistake was committed by them and they were going to rectify the same