DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.         This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 02.04.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 100 of 2010 by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short, ‘State Commission’) whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.

2.         The brief facts in the instant appeal are that complainant No. 1, Kailash Chand, a farmer running nursery in Amritsar.  The complainant No. 1, having received a cheque of Rs. 95,08,852/- from the Government under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, opened an account in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd./ OP- 2 and deposited the aforesaid cheque. On the suggestion made by an officer of the OP 2, Fixed Deposit Receipts for a sum of Rs. 50 Lakh and two other FDRs  valuing Rs. 10 Lakh each for a period of three months were made by the complainants. After three months, when the complainants went to the OP-2 Bank to encash the amount, OP-2 stated that their FDR could not be honoured as the said FDRs were fictitious and only Rs.9501/- was available balance in his account on 26.06.2010.  In pursuance to that, the complainants obtained the account statement from the OP/Bank and found that many wrong entries were made and certain amount was siphoned off  by the officers of OP-2. The OP/bank had assured the complainants for conduct of an inquiry and that the money will be transferred to their account within short span, but no avail.   Being aggrieved by the conduct of OPs, the complainants filed a complaint before the  State   Commission, for alleged deficiency in service of the OP/bank.

3.         The OPs filed their written statement and denied the allegations.  It was stated that no FDRs were made in respect to Rs. 50 Lakh and two of Rs.10 lakh each from the account of the complainant. The term deposit receipts (TDRs) produced by the complainants also does not appear to be genuine as the numbers mentioned therein does not exist in their record. It was further submitted by the OP that the complainants had carried out a transaction for investment in various mutual funds. They had withdrawn Rs. 53.67 Lakh from their account and invested in Kotak Life Insurance to the tune of Rs.7 Lakh and purchased Mutual Funds to the tune of Rs. 1.79 Crore.  There have been redemptions of the mutual funds into the account of the complainants to the tune of Rs. 1.55 Crore, thus, leaving the balance to Rs.9501/- as on 26-6-2010. So, there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OPs and they were not liable to pay any compensation.

4.         On the basis of pleadings and evidence, the State Commission vide its order dated 2.4.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the OPs/appellants to pay the complainants, a sum of ₹ 20 lakh alongwith interest @8% per annum from 8.6.2009 to 7.5.2010 and further interest, on that principal amount and interest, at the rate of 9% per annum from 8.5.2010 till the payment of that amount; ₹ 50,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 13.07.2009 to 14.10.2009 and further interest, on that principal amount and interest, at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.10.2009 till payment on that amount; ₹50,000/- as a compensation and ₹11,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.

5.         Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP/Bank filed this instant appeal.  We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the relevant document on the file. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the complainant had taken action for fraud on the part of the OP- bank and such allegations of fraud cannot be adjudicated by the fora created by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was submitted that the complainants had made investments by transferring funds from the account in question. Those investments were made in mutual funds. The TDRs were never issued by the OP–Bank.  Moreover, as per bank account statement, the complainant had deposited Rs. 9 lakh on 5-10-2009 in term deposit and was pre- maturely withdrawn on 11-01-2010 by the complainants.  On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/ complainants defended them by stating that the complainants were illiterate persons and unaware of the amount in mutual funds. The complainants never invested any amount in the mutual funds with their free will and amount, if any, deposited be redeemed.  If any amount was deposited on their behalf, it could be sufficiently presumed to be the illegal act of the officials of the OP – bank. It was further argued that the amount was deposited in three FDRs by the bank officials by taking signatures on various papers. So, it was the duty of the bank to clarify how the sum of Rs. 95,08,852/-  swindled to Rs. 9501/- . So, it was a clear that the officials have misappropriated the amount and issued the FDRs fraudulently to the complainants. Therefore, it was now the duty of the bank to trace the bank official, who issued the same with the seal of the bank.  

6.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the documents.  The OPs have filed additional documents like copies of cheques, statement of account and the letter signed by complainant No. 1.  On bare perusal of the copies of the cheques and comparing with the letter, it is clear that  the signature of complainant No. 1,  neither matches nor is identical in the characteristics.  Moreover, there are some corrections/interpolations  on the cheque.  Cheque No. 000002 was issued on 4.6.2008, whereas it was stated that it was drawn in the year 2009.  To cover up the anomaly, OP had honoured the cheque and put the blame on the complainant -1, that  it was honoured only under his instructions.  It is pertinent to note that, the OP has intentionally not filed the original cheque.  It is not acceptable that the complainant No. 1, who is an illiterate person, on his own volition, will opt for investment of a huge amount in mutual funds like Birla Sun Life Saving Fund (₹ 10 Lakhs) and HDFC Cash Management Fund (₹50 lakhs). For the fraudulent act of the Bank officials, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.

7.         On the basis of foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank and its officials. We do not find any merit in the instant appeal. It is dismissed.      

However, there shall be no order as to costs.