ICICI Bank Ltd vs C.P. Aysha & Anr.

V.K. Jain, J

The complainants in these matters are husband and wife. The complainant in RP/638/2019, namely Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi was a District Judge in Kerala. The complainant in RP/637/2019 is his wife Mrs. C.P. Aysha. At the relevant time, the respondent Mr. Abhilash Thomas was working with the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. The case of the complainants in nutshell is that Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi gave a cheque of Rs.25 lacs drawn to self/cash cheque to Mr. Abhilash Thomas on 16.05.2006. This is also the case of his wife Mrs. C.P. Aysha that she also gave a cheque of Rs.2 lacs drawn to self/cash cheque and also made a cash payment of Rs.2 lacs to Mr. Abhilash Thomas, on 15.03.2006.

According to them, out of Rs.25 lacs taken from Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi by way of a self-drawn cheque/cash cheque. Mr. Abhilash Thomas deposited Rs.20 lacs in his Savings Bank Account and deposited Rs.2.5 lacs in the mutual fund units. This is also the case of the complainants that thereafter, Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi issued another self-drawn cheque/cash cheque of Rs.8 lacs to Mr. Abhilash Thomas on 01.12.2009, after more than three years of the date on which the first self-drawn cheque/cash cheque was given. As far as the cheque issued by Smt. C.P. Aysha is concerned, the said amount was neither deposited nor invested by Mr. Abhilash Thomas, the same according to her was the position in respect of cash payment of Rs.2 lacs. This is also the case of Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi that thereafter, he paid an amount of Rs.1 lac to Mr. Abhilash Thomas on 31.01.2009 for taking an insurance policy of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company but no such policy was taken by him.

Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate Consumer Complaints impleading both Abhilash Thomas and ICICI Bank Ltd. as the OPs in the Consumer Complaints.

Mr. Abhilash Thomas did not appear before the District Forum and remained ex-parte. ICICI Bank Ltd. however, contested the complaints and inter-alia stated that it had not received any of the above referred amounts from the complainants. This is also the case of the bank that since the cheques were drawn on self, they were duly paid from the account of the concerned complainant when presented at the cash counter.

The District Forum having allowed the complaints, the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals also having been dismissed, the petitioner bank is before this Commission by way of these two separate Revision Petitions.

Since Mr. Abhilash Thomas admittedly, was an employee of ICICI Bank Ltd. till July 2009, the bank would be vicariously liable for all his acts only if the said acts were committed by him in his capacity as an employee of the bank and discharging his duties as an employee of the bank. The bank will not be liable for any amount obtained by him from the complainants in any other capacity.

The complainant Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi is not a layman, he having been a District Judge. There is absolutely no explanation as to why he did not issue a payees account cheque in the name of ICICI Bank Ltd. if he was handing over the cheque of Rs.25 lacs to Mr. Abhilash Thomas for being deposited in / invested with ICICI Bank Ltd. Even the bearer cheque which he handed over to Mr. Abhilash Thomas, was drawn to self and not in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd. Again, there is no explanation as to why the said bearer cheque was not drawn in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd. Had the cheques, whether cross cheques or bearer cheques, been drawn in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd., the payment would not even made to the person who presented the cheques for encashment. The same is the position in respect of the self-drawn cheque of Rs.2 lacs issued by Smt. C.P. Aysha wife of Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi to Mr. Abhilash Thomas. The aforesaid conduct on their part indicates that though they may have delivered the self-drawn cheques to Mr. Abhilash Thomas, the cheques were not delivered to Mr. Abhilash Thomas and were not collected by him in his capacity as an employee of ICICI Bank Ltd. Had the aforesaid cheques been collected by Abhilash Thomas on behalf of ICICI Bank Ltd., Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi and his wife would have been issued cheques in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd. and would not have drawn the cheques to self since everyone knows that a cheque drawn to self can be encashed by anyone at the cash counter of the bank. As far as the alleged cash payment of Rs.2 lacs by Smt. C.P. Aysha to Mr. Abhilash Thomas is concerned, no receipt of the said cash payment was filed before the District Forum. In fact, she did not even allege that while receiving the cash payment of Rs.2 lacs from her, Mr. Abhilash Thomas had issued a receipt to her acknowledging receipt of the cash payment of Rs.2 lacs. There is no explanation as to why cash payment of a huge amount of Rs.2 lacs was made to Mr. Abhilash Thomas in cash and that too, without even obtaining a receipt from him. The said conduct raises a serious doubt on the correctness of the claim made in this regard.

As noted earlier, self-drawn cheque of Rs.25 lacs was allegedly delivered to Mr. Abhilash Thomas on 16.05.2006 whereas the self-drawn cheque of Rs.2 lacs was allegedly delivered to him on 15.03.2006. The second self-drawn cheque which was for an amount of Rs.8 lacs was allegedly delivered to Mr. Abhilash Thomas on 01.12.2009, about 3½ years of the date on which the self-drawn cheque of Rs.25 lacs was given to him by Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi. This is also the case of the complainants that out of the amount of Rs.25 lacs, given to him by Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi, Mr. Abhilash Thomas had deposited/invested only Rs.22.5 lacs, meaning thereby that he had retained the balance amount of Rs.2.5 lacs with him. The amount of Rs.4 lacs alleged to have been paid to him by Mrs. C.P. Aysha was allegedly neither deposited nor invested by Mr. Abhilash Thomas. It is very strange that despite Mr. Abhilash Thomas having retained Rs.2.5 lacs out of Rs.25 lacs alleged to have been paid to him by Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi and the whole of Rs.4 lacs alleged to have been paid by Mrs. C.P. Aysha, for almost three years, another payment and that too of a substantial amount of Rs.8 lacs was made to him by Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi. There is no explanation as to how they could trust such a person by giving him a self-drawn cheque of Rs.8 lacs to a person who had retained Rs.6.5 lacs out of the amount alleged to have been given to him by Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi and Mrs. C.P. Aysha. The said conduct on the part of Mr. C.P.U Farook Shafi also belies his case that the payments were made by the complainants to Mr. Abhilash Thomas for and on behalf of ICICI Bank Ltd.

The amount of Rs.1 lac for taking an insurance policy is alleged to have been paid to Mr. Abhilash Thomas years after the first payment and again no receipt is even alleged to have been taken from him while paying the said amount in cash. Though it is vaguely alleged in the complaint that Mr. Abhilash Thomas had shown a letter from the bank requesting the complainants to pay the said amount to him, no such letter was produced before the State Commission.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that even if the self-drawn cheques/cash cheques were delivered by the complainants and cash payments were made by them to Mr. Abhilash Thomas, neither the said self-drawn cheques/cash cheques nor the cash payments were made to him in his capacity as an employee of ICICI Bank Ltd. nor did he accept the said cheques and payment for and on behalf of the bank. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent liability has also been fastened upon the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The complaints are consequently dismissed only against the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. with no order as to costs. However, the orders passed by the fora below, to the extent they are directed against Mr. Abhilash Thomas, remain unaffected by this order.

Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of.

The amount which the petitioner bank had deposited in compliance of the interim order of this Commission, be released to the petitioner bank alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.