Punjab National Bank vs KRISHAN KUMAR MODI

THIS appeal is by Punjab National Bank challenging order of District Forum, Patiala dated October 15, 1996 directing the appellant to pay in lump sum Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant Krishan Kumar Modi.

SOME of the facts are not in dispute. Krishan Kumar Modi is alleged to have visited the Bank premises in order to clear some loan amount as well as to purchase Fixed Deposit Receipt. He had a sum of Rs. 30.000/- with him having been withdrawn from Union Bank of India. After meeting the Bank official, two pay in-slips were prepared for depositing Rs. 20.000/- for Fixed Deposit and Rs. 4,287/-. The complainant is alleged to have gone to Cashier counter and handed over the money. Immediately, some terrorists entered the Bank and looted the cash of the Bank including the amount alleged to have been deposited by the complainant. When demand was raised the Bank declined to pay, hence complaint before the District Forum. The Bank admitted the visit of the complainant, however, denied that the amount had been handed over to the Cashier. The fact that terrorists had visited the Bank on that day i.e. September 11, 1990 and looted the cash of the Bank, is admitted. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. Relying on the stand of the complainant, the District Forum passed the impugned order. The disputed question, on which the decision of the case rests is as to whether the complainant had actually handed over the cash to the Bank Cashier and thereafter there was loot or before the amount was handed over to the Cashier, the terrorists/dacoits looted the amount from the complainant as well as from the Cashier of the Bank. The complainant produced his own affidavit and to corroborate the same reference was made to the statement of Raj Kumar Gupta, Cashier of the Bank as recorded by the police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the case had been registered with the police and police had investigated the matter. The complainant also produced photocopies of pay in-slips (Ex. C-2). The complainant also relied upon a news of the newspaper (Ex. C-5) and copies of the complaint addressed to different Authorities (Exs. C-6 to C-11). On the other hand, the bank produced affidavit of Raj Kumar Gupta, Head Cashier, C.D. Garg, District Coordinator of the Bank. It may be observed that Raj kumar Gupta categorically stated that the amount was not handed over to him by the complainant on September 11, 1990 and he did not make statement, accordingly to the police, that the amount had been handed over to him. It may be stated that statement of a witness recorded during the investigation of the case by the police under Section 161 can not be made use of in any proceeding except before the Criminal Court where the accused are to be tried. We have on the record only the bare affidavit of the complainant on his side, the affidavit of Raj Kumar Gupta given on oath, on the other side. Such disputed question in summary proceedings as stated above, cannot be adjudicated. It requires more evidence in detail. In case the amount had not been actually given to the Head Cashier, there would be no question of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Bank. It is appropriate as was plea submitted by the Bank that the complainant should be relegated to seek his remedy before the Civil Court.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is dismissed leaving the complainant to approach the Civil Court, if so advised, for the remedy. Appeal allowed.