Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 479
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, MEMBER
ODISHA GRAMYA BANK – Appellant
Versus
HIRANMAYEE JENA & ANR. – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 468 of 2021
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shakti K. Pattanaik
For the Respondent:
A bank has a duty to ensure the security of customer deposits and cannot evade liability due to employee misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petition challenging the order of appeal - Allegation of non-refund of deposit amount leading to deficiency in service by the bank - The District Commission had ordered repayment of the amount with interest and compensation, which was upheld by the State Commission. (Paras 1 and 12)
(B) Deficiency of Service - The complainant proved the deposit through counterfoils, affirming the obligation of the bank to refund the amount - The employee's misconduct does not absolve the bank of responsibility - The Commission found no error in the lower courts' decisions. (Paras 4, 5, and 15)
(C) Burden of Proof - It is settled law that the complainant must establish the deficiency of service by the Opponent - The court noted the continuous duty of the bank to maintain service standards. (Paras 11 and 14)
Facts of the case:
The complainant deposited money in her SB account which was later withdrawn without her consent due to alleged employee misconduct. The bank failed to resolve the issue after multiple complaints. The District Commission directed payment of the deposited amount with interest and compensation, which was affirmed by the State Commission.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the lower courts' findings, establishing that the bank showed deficiency in service by failing to refund the amount deposited and thus validated the complainant's claims.
Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of evidence for withdrawal of funds, gaps in the bank's oversight, and the applicability of limitation laws on ongoing service relations.
Ratio Decidendi: The bank had an absolute duty to ensure security of deposits, and its failure to act on the complainant's claim constituted a breach of service obligations, reaffirmed by sufficient evidence against the employee's malfeasance.
Result: Revision petition dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ruling on revision petition dismissal with costs (Para 1 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. proof of deposit validity and bank's duty of care (Para 4 , 5 , 14) |
| 3. responsibility of the bank regarding service deficiencies (Para 11) |
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (corresponding section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019) in challenge to the Order dated 30.04.2021 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha in Appeal No. 999 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 24.10.2006 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack in Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 2005.
2. Learned counsel argued on admission on 04.08.2021 and 12.08.2021. Today he concludes his arguments.
3. Perused the entire material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 24.10.2006, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 30.04.2021 and the petition.
4. The factual matrix of the case has been succinctly captured by the State Commission in paragraph 3 of its Order of 30.04.2021. The same is reproduced below:
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has opened a SB account bearing No. 1675 with the OP Bank since 1997. It is alleged inter alia that complainant has deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 5.3.1999 and Rs.5,000/- on 9.1.1999 with the OP – Bank. OP No. 3 was the Clerk in charge receiving the payment but later on absconded. Complainant alleged further that on 27.10.2000 she received a letter from the OP Bank with a request to verify her account. So the complainant went to the Bank and it was found out that the entire SB amount deposited on 5.3.1999 and 9.1.1999 have been withdrawn. But actually she has not withdrawn the amount. So she approached OP Nos. 1 and 2 who gave assurance to look after the matter. Then as per the instruction of OPs 1 and 2 – Bank, complainant was asked to submit the Pass Book etc. When she tried to convince the OP Bank for refund of that SB amount of Rs.48,125.25 including amount of Rs. 30,000/- but all are in vain. So alleging about non-refund of that amount of Rs.48,125.25 as deficiency in service on OPs, the complainant filed the complaint praying to credit the amount in her account along with payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.
5. The District Commission, vide its Order of 24.10.2006, allowed the complaint, on contest, and ordered the opposite party bank to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 48,125.25p. with the usual rate of interest of the bank from the respective dates of deposit till actual payment along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
6. The bank appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order of 30.04.2021, dismissed the appeal, holding that “this Commission do not find any error or illegality with the impugned order of the learned District Forum”.
Extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below for ready reference:
10. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
11. It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
12. It is admitted fact that the respondent has SB account bearing No. 1675 with the OP Bank. It is not in dispute that OP No. 3 is employee of OP Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of alleged deposit of money.
13. Complainant has stated that she has deposited Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 5.3.1999 and 9.1.1999 in her account. In support of that she submitted Annexure -1 series which are photocopies of necessary counter foils issued by the Bank. When the money has been deposited by issuing the counterfoils, the question of doubt over the misdeed of the employee of the OP Bank is hardly to be considered. The complainant has proved Annexure – 1A, the letter issued by the Bank asking her to deposit the pass book. That letter is dated 27.10.2000
