Haryana Gramin Bank (Earlier Known As Ambata Kurukshetra Gramin Bank vs Jaswinder

HEARD Counsel for the petitioners. The revisions are filed against concurrent findings of two Fora below.

ALL these revisions were taken up together since the issue involved is the same. Counsel for the petitioner was heard. For brief narration of the facts, the cases can be grouped under three heads. In the first head are cases where the amounts were shown as withdrawn from the accounts, whereas, in fact, no such withdrawals were made and in the ledger of the bank reduced balance after withdrawal was shown. The following chart will show the position in the said cases: Revision No. Amount entered in the Pass Book Amount shown as withdrawn but not entered in the Pass Book Balance amount standing in the ledger of the bank after alleged withdrawal Rs. Rs. Rs. 2453/2010 21,008 19,850 1,158 2454/2010 26,155 21,948 4,207 2455/2010 46,680 45,857 823 2456/2010 1,32,314 1,11,295 21,019 2457/2010 51,337 50,000 1,337 2458/2010 33,268 30,000 3,268 2467/2010 43,316 NIL 816

The second set consists of cases where the entire amount had been withdrawn. The details of the said cases are as under: Revision No. Amount entered in the Pass as Book Informed that entire amount had been withdrawn but not entered in the Pass Book Balance amount standing in the ledger of the bank after alleged withdrawal Rs. Rs. Rs. 2459/2010 1,30,500 -do- NIL 2461/2010 24,299 d NIL 2462/2010 19,850 d NIL 2466/2010 32,000 -do- NIL 2466/2010 32,000 -do- NIL 2468/2010 32,407 -do- NIL 2469/2010 16,497 -do- NIL

THE third set consists of issue of FDR and Loan Account payment. In R.P. No. 2458 of 2010 the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000 in the shape of FDR and OP had issued FDR No. CR-1-S-1052 dated 30.7.1998 which was to mature on 30.10.1999. The complainant had gone to OP for pre-mature withdrawal of FDR on 30.6.1999 and was informed that the amount of the FDR was shown to have been disbursed. In R.P. No. 2465 of 2010 the complainant had returned a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 19.4.99 to OP 3 Pawan Kumar, Ex-Branch Manager against receipt in respect of loan amount advanced to him by the OP. The said Ex-Branch Manager had issued a receipt and had made entry in the complainant''s Pass Book, but did not make any entry in the ledger of the Bank.

ALL these complainants had reported the matter to the OP pursuant to which, inquiry was conducted and on receipt of inquiry a criminal case under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467 and 471, IPC was registered vide FIR No. 67 dated 30.5.1999 in Police Station, Naraingarh against Pawan Kumar Lehna. The FIR was lodged by Sh. Virender Pal, Branch Manager of OP. The appellants investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467 and 471 IPC read with Section 120 B against Sh. P.K. Lehna, Nirmala Devi, Suresh Kumar, Yashpal and Virender P. Goyal who had lodged the FIR.

THE District Forum had allowed the complaints with compensation and cost. The appeals filed by OP-petitioner were dismissed. The State Commission on the basis of record came to the conclusion that in the officials of the bank were found to have committed fraud and embezzlement of the amounts deposited by the customers in the bank. The bank was held vicariously liable to adjust the amount in the accounts of the complainant. The State Commission has very rightly relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Smt. Shyama Devi, AIR 1978 SC 1263, wherein I has been held as under: "The first of the principles which govern the vicarious liability of an employer for the loss caused to a customer through the misdemeanour or negligence of an employee is that the employer is not liable for the act of the servant if the cause of the loss or damages arose without his actual fault or privity and without the fault or neglect of his agents or servants in the course of their employment. Thus, a master is liable for his servant''s fraud perpetrated in the course of master''s business, whether the fraud was for the master''s benefit or not, if it was committed by the servant in the course of his employment There, is no difference in the liability of a master for wrong whether for fraud or any other wrong committed by a servant in the course of his employment and it is a question of fact in each case whether it was committed in the course of the employment 1912 AC 716 and 1955 AC 130".

(Emphasis supplied)

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Superintendent of Post Offices Balughat and Ors. v. Mahendra Nath Basak, I (1995) CPJ 177 (NC). In this case, it was held that Pass Book is not conclusive evidence to determine balance in the account of an account holder. It is further held that the amount at the credit of an account holder is to be determined on the basis of the entries contained in the ledger maintained in the books of a Bank or the Post Office. The Pass Book is at the best evidence of the possible balance in a depositor''s account, but the correct balance at credit has to be determined from the ledger and not from the Pass Book. In that case, the account holder had deposited amounts from time to time and had not produced deposit slips. The facts of the said case are different. In the case before us, entries of the balance in the Pass Book are there as also the entries in the ledger book of the bank book. However, in ledger account withdrawals are shown in respect of which, there are no entries in the Pass Book and as such, it was for the bank to establish that the withdrawals have been made by the Account holders in the absence of any entry to that effect in the Pass Book. The case of the complainants is that they had not made any withdrawals and obviously the complainants could not produce any evidence that they had not withdrawn the amount from their accounts. The bank has shown in the ledger book the withdrawals and the reduced balance or nil balance and as such, it was for the bank to prove that the amount was withdrawn by the complainants. The OP has failed to prove the same. In the case of FDR also the amount of FDR is said to have been disbursed to the complainant but the bank did not produce any evidence of disbursal of the amount and in the case of loan account, Mr. P.K. Lehna, Manager had issued a receipt of payment of Rs. 50,000 on 19.4.1999 towards loan amount advanced to the complainant, but he did not make any entry in the complainants'' Pass Book, nor made any entry of receipt of Rs. 50,000 in the ledger of the Bank. In case of entire withdrawal of the amount, the Pass Book is required to be cancelled which was never done and the withdrawals of entire amount by complainants have not been established. All this goes to show that the concerned Bank employees have misappropriated the said amount in the course of their employment.

THEREFORE, as the fraud and embezzlement was committed by the employees of the OP-Bank in the course of employment, the State Commission has very rightly held that the OP/petitioner was vicariously liable for the action of its employees.

IN view of the above, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders. The revisions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.