KAMTA PD. SINGH vs Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank

-BOTH the cases have been heard together as the facts of both the cases are similar.

COMPLAINANT is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 20.5.2003 passed by District Forum, Bhojpur in Complaint Case Nos. 6/2003 and 7/2003 whereby and whereunder the complaint was dismissed. The brief fact of the case is that complainant had Savings Bank Account at Baruna branch of P.N.B. Bhojpur. The complainant is a businessman and he was operating his account regularly. On 19.12.2002, he went to the Bank for withdrawal of the amount but the Bank refused to honour his cheque. The complainant met the Manager of the Bank but he did not disclose him the reasons for not honouring his cheque. This caused immense loss to the complainant in his business and thereafter he filed the complaint.

On notice the Bank (O.P.) appeared, filed written statement and its main submission was that the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant is an agriculturist and not a businessman. The Bank alleged that complainant in connivance with employees of the Bank has fraudulently made withdrawal from the Bank on the basis of Kisan Credit Card. A detailed inquiry was made by the higher officials of the Bank in the matter and it was found that Rs. 52,05,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from the Bank by the complainant and several other persons in connivance of the employees of the Bank. It is also the case of the Bank that complainant is a guarantor of one Ajay Kumar Singh who is a loanee of the Bank. On his account, there was fraudulent withdrawal from the Bank and the complainant as a guarantor has placed before the Bank that father of loanee Ajay Kumar Singh has died though on inquiry it was found that he was still alive. It is the case of the Bank in this manner the complainant has played several frauds with the Bank in the fraudulent withdrawal of amount from different accounts. After due inquiry a criminal case was instituted with the local P.S. for which the complainant and several other persons were made accused. Thereafter in order to protect the interest of the other depositors a ban was imposed on the withdrawal from the Bank by the complainant and several other persons. Therefore, under these circumstances the complainant''s prayer for withdrawal was refused by the Bank.

THE District Forum after considering the facts on record and the submission of the parties has held that it is proved beyond doubt that on the basis of Kisan Credit Card there has been fraudulent withdrawals from the Bank from different accounts in which the complainant was also a party and a criminal case has been instituted against him and several other persons and the account of these persons have been seized. THErefore, the Bank was legally bound to dishonour the request of the complainant in withdrawal of the amount from the Bank. THErefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the Bank and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. We have heard the parties and perused the several documents which have been produced on behalf of the Bank which includes the certified copy of bail order of Kamta Pd. Singh (complainant), copy of the F.I.R. of P.S. Case No. 10/2004 and also the statement of account of the Bank which supports the contention of the Bank that there has been fraudulent withdrawals and after due inquiry the Bank found that complainant in connivance with several other persons including the Bank employees have fraudulently withdrawn the amount from the Bank on the basis of Kisan Credit Card. A case was instituted against several other persons including the complainant-appellant under Section 420 and other sections and the police have seized the Bank account as investigation was going on. Therefore, on the basis of these documents, we are of the view that Bank has rightly refused to the complainant in further withdrawal of the amount from the Bank. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with the facts and law and it does not require our interference.

IN the result, we do not find any merit in both the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeals dismissed.