AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. M. Kantikar, J
We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner - complainant and the respondent - bank, and perused the material on record.
The dispute relates to fraudulent withdrawal of an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant's account with the bank.
The District Forum had heard both sides and vide a reasoned Order dated 26.08.2016 allowed the complaint:
The affidavit submitted by the complainant and reply submitted by bank establish that after making forged signature of the complainant the money has been withdrawn for which criminal complain has been filed. The bank staff and officer were under obligation to keep the reasonable care in matching the signature and to follow the legal formalities in making payment. Due to careless approach on their part this fraud committed and complainant forcibly deprive to get his money for this much of period. As a result he has not only faced economical loss but has to suffer physical and mental pain. Banks should have given adequate compensation and on legal notice itself which they failed to do. Hence in our considered opinion the Complainant is entitled to recover the adequate compensation and reimbursement of legal expense.
Order
From the above discussion, the complain filed by the complainant against Respondent is accepted and it is ordered that Respondent shall pay Rs. 75000/- to complainant and shall pay interest from 18.09.2007. Apart from this Respondent shall also pay Rs.10000/- compensation and Rs.5000/- as legals expense to the complainant within period of 2 month otherwise the complainant shall be entitle to receive 6% interest on per annum basis on this amount. The Respondent bank is free to recover the said amount, compensation etc. from the officer/staff on whose negligence the above fraud got committed.
(para 17 of the District Forum's Order)
(as per the translated copy furnished by the complainant)
The complainant went in appeal before the State Commission for enhancement in the award. The State Commission vide its Order dated 15.12.2016 dismissed the appeal in limine:
The Forum below has held that it was the common practice of the appellant to keep about Rs. 1 lakh in the account and there is no evidence that he want to use the money to put in fixed deposit or for expansion of his business. Hence, after considering the merit of the case a reasonable compensation has been allowed. There is no ground to enhance the same. The appeal is not liable to be accepted hence, rejected in limine.
(extract from the State Commission's Order)
This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 15.12.2016 of the State Commission.
In so far as the fundamental question of fraudulent withdrawal of an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant's account in the respondent bank is concerned, we note that the same has been duly determined by the District Forum. The respondent bank has not agitated the District Forum's Order. In this instant revision before this Commission, also, the fraudulent withdrawal from the complainant's account has not been disputed by the bank.
The fraudulent withdrawal was made in 2007. The revision petition was filed in 2017. The complainant has been agitating in one, two, and now three, consumer fora for just and appropriate award.
We are of the considered view that in such case of undisputed fraudulent withdrawal from an account holder's account, in addition to making good the amount fraudulently withdrawn, the bank should, in all fairness, pay interest at the prevalent rate of interest for fixed deposit from the date of fraudulent withdrawal till the date of actual payment (the rationale being that it may be treated as if the fraudulently withdrawn amount was with the bank in fixed deposit).
We are also of the considered view that, in addition, in this instant case, the just and appropriate compensation for agony and harassment, hardship and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, would be Rs.25,000/-, and the just and appropriate cost of litigation would be Rs.25,000/-.
The revision petition is allowed with the direction that the respondent bank shall pay to the complainant the amount fraudulently withdrawn (Rs.75,000/-) with interest at the prevalent rate of interest for fixed deposit from the date of fraudulent withdrawal (18.09.2007) till the date of actual payment alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- within 30 days of the pronouncement of this Order failing which the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
We also advise the respondent bank to take the necessary departmental and criminal and civil action as per the law regarding the fraudulent withdrawal in question.
Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the chief executive of the respondent bank by the Registry within ten days.