Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ajit Bharihoke, P.M and Rekha Gupta, Member
BANK OF BARODA - Appellant
Versus
SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2529 of 2012 from Order dated 25.5.2012 in Appeal Nos. 481 & 526 of 2001 of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna.
Decided on : 21-07-2015
B.S. Chouhan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shilpi Shah, Advocate, for the Respondent
The duty of the bank to protect its customers and the requirement for legitimate evidence in consumer disputes.
Headnote:
Bank Draft - Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act - [Consumer Protection Act, Section 27, Indian Penal Code, Section 395] - The court discussed the unethical behavior of the bank officials, the duty of the bank to protect its customers, and the failure of the respondent to provide evidence of depositing the money with the bank. The court highlighted the importance of the bank's responsibility to protect the interests of its customers and the need for legitimate evidence in consumer disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent alleged that he deposited money for two drafts in the bank, which was then looted by dacoits. The District Forum ordered the bank to make the payment, but the State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to provide evidence of depositing the money with the bank and that the lower fora did not appreciate the facts of the case correctly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bank was liable to refund the amount to the respondent and whether the respondent was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's duty to protect its customers and the need for legitimate evidence in consumer disputes influenced its decision to set aside the lower fora's orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the lower fora, and dismissed the complaint.
ORDER
Rekha Gupta, Member. - Revision Petition No. 2529 of 2012 has been filed against the order dated 25.5.2012 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ('the State Commission') in Appeal Nos. 481 and 526 of 2001.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent works for M/s. Mohan Auto Service (Petrol Pump), Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi and the wife of the respondent namely Smt. Meera Devi was the partner of the above said firm.
3. On 20.4.1993 the respondent had allegedly deposited Rs. 77,812 for two drafts with the petitioner/opposite party/Bank of Baroda, Branch Dharharva, District Muzaffarpur. The amount was deposited by the Manager on his own and entered in the register. The respondent was asked to sit for some time. The respondent sat there for about one and a half hours and while the drafts were being prepared. In the meantime, at about 2= p.m. dacoits entered forcibly into the bank. The Bank staff, other sitting customers and cashier were locked up in a room by them. The dacoits took away money and valuable documents such as bank drafts and stamp papers at gun point. An FIR to this effect has been lodged.
4. On the same day, an application was given to the Bank Manager asking for the two drafts for which money had been deposited in the Bank. Bank Manager received the application but showed his inability in issuing the drafts to him.
5. In their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muzaffarpur ('the District Forum') the petitioner/opposite party/Bank stated that the respondent did not deposit a single farthing in the Bank, rather the respondent, filled up the form and the same was pre-scrolled in the Bank as per procedure and practise of the Bank on 20.4.1993 but the respondent did not deposit a single paise in the cash counter nor produce a single chit of paper showing deposit in cash counter. Hence, the claim of the respondent is baseless and the same is fit to be rejected.
6. The respondent after filling up the form for Bank Draft and after the same is pre-scrolled has to deposit the cash on the cash counter. However, in the meantime, dacoits came into the bank and the dacoits looted the bank. The respondent has alleged that the said dacoits also looted away his cash also, hence, the Bank is not liable for the said amount as claimed by the respondent.
7. The respondent himself lodged an FIR before the local police on 20.4.1993 at 17.30 p.m. which was registered at Aurai PS Case No. 0024/93 under Section 395, IPC and the same is sub judice in the competent Court so any order passed at this stage will amount to interference in the police investigation.
8. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muzaffarpur ('the District Forum') vide order dated 13.8.2001 while allowing the complaint gave the following order:
"It is ordered, that opposite party will make the payment of Rs. 77,812 to the petitioner within 40 days along with interest @ 7% which would be applicable from the date of deposit of the amount by the petitioner for making drafts and till the date of payment made to the petitioner, otherwise legal action would be taken according to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act."
9. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, both the petitioner and the respondent filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 25.5.2012 dismissed both the appeals by observing as under:
"11. There is no evidence on the record so as to show that the respondent Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad had never gone to the Bank premises with money for preparation of Bank Draft as claimed by him, which was not looted by the dacoit inside the premises. The different steps for the purpose of deposit of money in the Bank counter are to be scrolled and examined by the Bank officials and for that they cannot take a plea that such money was not deposited with the cashier, when it was scrolled and entered in
