IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
N. KOTISWAR SINGH C.J., MOHAMMAD YOUSUF WANI, J.
Sheikh Imran Farooq S/o Sheikh Farooq Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd Corporate headquarters – Respondent
MA No. 24 of 2018 c/w MA No. 04 of 2018
Decided on : 03-07-2024
(A) Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 - Section 17 - Consumer complaint against bank for unauthorized withdrawals - Compensation awarded for mental agony and business loss - Bank's actions deemed deficient and negligent - Inquiry into bank officials' conduct directed. (Paras 20-42)
(B) Deficiency in Service - The bank's failure to verify the authenticity of debit vouchers led to unauthorized withdrawals, resulting in significant financial loss and mental distress for the complainant. (Paras 17, 41)
(C) Burden of Proof - The bank must establish authorization for transactions; failure to do so results in liability for damages. (Paras 32-34)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a business owner, suffered unauthorized withdrawals amounting to Rs. 42,69,763 from his account due to forged debit vouchers, leading to business losses and mental trauma. The bank's defense was that the complainant authorized the transactions to save his brother's loan account from becoming a non-performing asset.
Findings of Court:
The court found the bank guilty of deficient service and awarded Rs. 15.00 lacs as compensation for mental agony and loss of business, along with interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether the bank acted negligently in allowing unauthorized withdrawals and the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the bank's failure to verify the authenticity of the debit vouchers constituted a deficiency in service, warranting compensation for the complainant's losses.
Result: Both appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Mohd Yousuf Wani, J.
01. Impugned in the instant appeals filed under the provisions of Section 17 of Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (now repealed & hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) is the order dated 28th of February 2018 passed by the J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the Commission for short) on a consumer complaint No. 133 of 2012 filed by the appellant/complainant against the Respondent-Bank/opposite parties whereby the learned Commission inter alia passed the following directions at para Nos. 20, 21 and 22 while disposing of the complaint:-
20. “It is not in dispute while assessing the amount of mental agony the complainant has undergone, is visible from the way he has been treated by the bank. It is also a fact that he has suffered a loss of business due to non- availability of funds. Even though, in his complaint he has not quantified the amount of loss that he has suffered as he has restricted his prayer only to the extent of granting Rs.60.00 lacs. Keeping in view these facts, we allow a damage of Rs.15.00 lacs (rupees fifteen lacs only) to be paid to the complainant. The amount of Rs.42,69,763/- (rupees forty two lacs sixty nine thousand seven hundred sixty three only), which has been withdrawn from his C.C. Account is required to be transferred to his account and for the period this amount remained unutilized by the complainant, no interest shall be charged by the bank from him. He shall also be found entitled to receive interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Therefore, the following directions are issued:,
a) An amount of Rs.42,69,763/- (rupees forty two lacs sixty nine thousand seven hundred sixty three only) be transferred to the C.C.Account of the complainant forthwith and no interest for the period this amount, remained unutilized by the complainant, shall be charged by the bank from the complainant.
b) Compensation for tremendous mental agony and loss of business is awarded as Rs.15.00 lacs (rupees fifteen lacs only).
c) Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint shall also be payable to the complainant. The opposite party-bank shall comply this order within a period of two months from the date of order.
21. Since the stand of the bank is that this amount stands transferred in the loan account of brother of the complainant namely Sheikh Irfan Farooq, bank will be at liberty to recover this amount form said Sheikh Irfan Farooq by taking appropriate legal remedies available under law.
22. Before parting with the judgment, it is a case of unique nature where with open eyes the bank officials have committed the fraud and forgery which is a case of gross deficiency of service Unmindful of the consequences. Not only this, they have harassed the complainant by initiating recovery proceedings against him being fully aware that default in the cash credit account was on account of the illegal act committed by the bank. We are surprised that the bank authorities have not taken any action against the defaulting officers even though more than five years have elapsed. The banks are the custodian of the money which belongs to the public. Therefore, affecting such sham transactions results in people losing confidence in the banking system. An appropriate direction in this behalf could have been issued for registration of a FIR for taking cognizance against the erring bank officials but we constrain ourselves from doing so and we hope that the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank will take cognizance of the matter. It is directed that the Chairman of the bank shall appoint an Inquiry Committee headed by a General Manager of the Bank, who shall identify the officials, who indulged in this sham and fraudulent transactions and proceed against them The inquiry be initiated within a period of three months from the date copy this order is served 'on the CEO/Chairman of the bank. In case the needful is not d
The bank's failure to verify the authenticity of debit vouchers led to unauthorized withdrawals, constituting a deficiency in service and warranting compensation for the complainant's losses.
A bank's allowance of withdrawals from a joint account involving an illiterate individual violates regulatory norms, necessitating accountability for negligence and fraud.
“In new of facts and circumstance of the case if mater is found to be a subject of fresh consideration, remand of matter held justified.”
National Commission – Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited.
Banks must authenticate transactions rigorously; failure leads to liability for unauthorized fund transfers.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.