A bank is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees in the course of business, especially regarding customer transactions.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against order dated 28.08.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 281 of 2015. In this, the Appeal by the Respondents/ OPs was allowed, thereby setting aside the Order dated 28.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Araria (“District Forum”) in CC No. 85 of 2013, wherein the Complainant’s complaint was allowed.

2. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 137 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. The said delay was condoned vide order dated 28.03.2019 passed by this Commission subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account by the Petitioner. However, the same has not been deposited by the Petitioner as yet but he has moved an Application being IA/17148/2019 seeking waiver of the said cost.

3. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per the Complaint before the District Forum. Munna Prashad Soni is the Complainant (Petitioner herein). SBI and Its Managers are referred as OPs No.1, 2 & 4 (Respondents No.1, 2 & 4) and Deepesh Sinha is referred as OP-3 ( Respondent No. 3 herein).

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he took an SBI Life Smart ULIP Policy No. 33024699508 on 12.12.2009 from State Bank of India, Jogbani Branch, with an annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. Premium payments were made regularly until issues arose in 2012. On 04.01.2012, he deposited Rs.50,000/- towards the policy premium with respondent no. 3 (identified as Shri Dipesh Sinha), receiving a counter slip as proof of payment. Despite this, there were discrepancies noted by the bank regarding the premium payment status. Allegations were made that the bank officials, particularly respondents no. 2 and 3, failed to properly handle the premium deposit, leading to lapsing of the policy. The complainant engaged with bank officials, filed complaints, and sought resolution multiple times. Legal notices and complaints were filed, but the issue persisted. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint claiming mental agony, physical harassment, loss of work, and other damages due to the non-payment.

5. In their reply before the District Forum, Respondents No. 1, 2, and 4 (SBI Bank and its officials) contended the absence of liability for any deficiencies. They contended that the primary issue lies with Respondent no. 3 (Shri Dipesh Sinha), who allegedly mishandled the premium deposit amount. A case of cheating against Respondent No. 3 is already registered and pending in court. Respondents contended that they did not commit any deficiency in service and that the dispute primarily involves Respondent No. 3. They maintained that they are not vicariously liable for the actions of Respondent No. 3 and sought dismissal of the complaint.

6. Respondent No.3 did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte.

7. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 28.08.2015, allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“We are the opinion that SBI is liable to Pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousands) deposited by the applicant on dt. 4-1-12 and the other premium deposited by the applicant. So the bank is liable to pay is as below:

1. The amount Rs.50,000/-(Fifty thousands rupees) deposited by the applicant on dt. 4-1-12.

2. The loss of policy Rs.One Lakh.

3. Mental harassment and case expenditure Rs.25,000/-.

The total amount Rs.1,75,000/- (One Lakh Seventy five thousand rupees only).

It is further directed that the banking authority has full right to make inquiry against the person, who is in fault and take the said amount from their salary are their deposit. But the banking authority is also liable to pay total amount Rs.1,75,000/- (One Lakh seventy five thousand rupees) as calculated above within