Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. B.S. Verma, President and Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
SMT. JANKI - Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 148 and 164 of 2016
Decided on : 14-06-2017
Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in First Appeal No. 148 of 2016.; Sh. Sanjay Mehndiratta, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent in First Appeal No. 148 of 2016.; Sh. Sanjay Mehndiratta, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in First Appeal No. 164 of 2016.; Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent in First Appeal No. 164 of 2016.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of a bank for the fraudulent actions of its employee, emphasizing the bank's admission of the employee's actions and previous rulings holding the bank guilty of deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Bank's Liability - Section 15, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Summary: The court discussed the liability of a bank for the fraudulent actions of its employee, referencing the Consumer Protection Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court highlighted the bank's admission of the employee's embezzlement and the previous rulings holding the bank guilty of deficiency in service. The court dismissed the bank's argument that the case involved complicated questions of fraud and cheating, emphasizing that the matter was quite simple and the offence committed by the employee had been proved in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 with the bank in an FDR, which was later found to be forged by a bank employee who embezzled the funds. The bank refused to pay the amount with interest, leading to the consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the bank liable for the embezzlement committed by its employee, emphasizing the bank's admission of the employee's actions and previous rulings holding the bank guilty of deficiency in service.
Issues: The issues revolved around the bank's liability for the fraudulent actions of its employee, the admissibility of the case under the Consumer Protection Act, and the entitlement of the complainant to interest on the amount deposited.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank was equally liable for the embezzlement committed by its employee and dismissed the bank's argument that the case involved complicated questions of fraud and cheating. The court also allowed the complainant's appeal for enhancement of compensation, directing the bank to pay interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the bank was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement was allowed. The court modified the impugned order to require the bank to pay interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit.
ORDER
B.S. Verma, President member. - These two appeals under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 98 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 20.11.1996, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite party - Punjab National Bank, Mata Mandir Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Anupam FDR for a period of 66 months'. The complainant is having an Account No. 1987 with the bank and the above amount was deposited in the said account. On 20.05.2002, the FDR was renewed by the bank for a further period of 36 months'. In the year 2005, the complainant was called in the bank by the bank officials and was apprised of the fact that Sh. Bhagwan Das Yadav, an official of the bank, has misappropriated the fund lying in the account of several customers of the bank and has embezzled certain amount. Thereafter, the complainant made inquiry about her account, whereupon she was told that C.B.I. inquiry is going on in the matter and after conclusion of the inquiry, she would be given information. On 27.06.2005, the C.B.I. Inspector called the complainant in the bank and took the FDR from the complainant and gave the receipt thereof. The accused confessed his offence before the learned court. The complainant several times requested the bank for payment of the amount with interest, but to no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
3. The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that there is no entry of the alleged FDR in the books of the bank; that the matter being related to fraud, is not cognizable by the Consumer Fora; that the dispute is not of summary nature and requires voluminous evidence for adjudication of the same and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence on record allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.06.2016 and directed the bank to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the bank has filed First Appeal No. 148 of 2016, thereby assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order and whereas being not satisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum per impugned order, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 164 of 2016, thereby seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, these are being decided together by this common order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Sh. Bhagwan Das Yadav, functioning as clerk-cum-god-own-keeper in Punjab National Bank, Kashipur and also at Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Kashipur, during the period from 1995 to 2004, had misappropriated the bank's funds by fraudulently transferring the amount lying in the account of several customers to his account and also forged certain FDR's. The said accused has also confessed his offence and the learned Special Magistrate (C.B.I.), Prevention of Corruption Act, Dehradun has also convicted the accused-Sh. Bhagwan Das Yadav with certain imprisonment and he was also directed to pay sum of Rs. 20,74,790/- to the bank.
7. The Competent Authority/Regional Manager, Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Kashipur vide his sanction order dated 28.12.2005 (Paper Nos. 48/1 to 48/5 of the original record), after taking into consideration all the facts, has accorded sanction under s
