District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Leelawati Devi & Anr.

The case of the complainant/respondent in nutshell is that they deposited a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with the petitioner bank for which Fixed Deposits Receipts were issued to them. The said fixed deposits were renewed from time to time. When the complainant approached the petitioner bank for encashment of the fixed deposits, the same was refused by the bank. Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank which interalia stated in its reply that no amount was actually deposited by the complainants with the bank and that the Fixed Deposit Receipts had been obtained in connivance with one Murlidhar Mishra cashier of the bank.

The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission.

The cash deposits in a bank including a cooperative bank can be made only by way of a deposit slip. No deposit slip was filed by the complainant with the consumer complaint. No copy of any deposit slip was annexed to the complaint. It is true that issuance of the FDR is a prima facie proof of the amount of the FDR having been received by the bank, but that would not come in the way of the bank to prove by direct or by substantial evidence that no cash was actually deposited and the FDRs were obtained in connivance with an unscrupulous employee of the bank. On a previous date, I specifically directed the complainant/respondent to place on record the cash deposit receipts issued to him by the bank when the FDRs were initially taken. Neither the original cash deposit slips nor their copies have been filed. It is ex-facie clear from a bare perusal of the consumer complaint that neither the original case deposit slips nor their copies were filed with the consumer complaint. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that with the passage of time, the cash deposit slips have been misplaced or destroyed by the complainant and that is the reason, the same could not be produced. The explanation given by the learned counsel, however, is not satisfactory. The consumer complaint was filed with a grievance that the bank was not encashing the FDRs which it had issued to the complainants. Thus, the complainants knew that their claim was being disputed by the bank. Therefore, in the normal course of human conduct, the depositor would retain the cash deposit slips or at least the copies of such deposit slips. In the written version to the consumer complaint, the bank had denied having received Rs.1,60,000/- from the complainants. Therefore, the complainants knew that even in the consumer complaint their claim was being disputed by the petitioner bank. Hence, no person possessing such vital documents would destroy or misplace them. Therefore, I am satisfied that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was not deposited by the complainants with the petitioner bank.

The learned counsel for the complainants submits that a concurrent finding of fact having been returned by the Fora below, this Commission will not be justified in upsetting such concurrent finding of fact, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Ordinarily, a finding of fact particularly when it is a concurrent finding should not be upset by a revisional forum but it is also an equally settled proposition that if the finding of fact recorded by the Fora below is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person acting on the material available on record could have returned such a finding, the revisional forum would be competent to interfere and set aside such a finding. In my opinion, in the absence of production of the deposit slips or at least their copies, the finding returned by the Fora below would be categorized as a perverse finding and this Commission would be justified in interfering with the said finding in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the C.P. Act.

The case of the petitioner bank is that not only an FIR was lodged by it against Mr. Murlidhar Mishra who had defrauded the bank an internal enquiry was also held in which it was clearly established that the cashier had made fraudulent debit entry in the record of the bank to justify the issuance of the FDRs. I have perused the enquiry report and it does show that false debit entries were made by Mr. Murlidhar Mishra.

The learned counsel for the complainants submits that no charge-sheet against the complainant has been filed though he would be an accused in case he was acting in connivance with the cashier Mr. Murlidhar Mishra. Since a consumer forum is required to make its own enquiry in the matter and record an independent finding, it would be immaterial whether the complainant was prosecuted by the concerned police officer or not. What is material in my opinion is the failure of the complainant to prove the deposits of Rs.1,60,000/- with the petitioner bank.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The consumer complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.