Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the impugned Order of the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India.

The dispute between the parties primarily relates to deduction of a sum of Rs. 96,506/- from the Savings account of the Respondent by the Appellant.

Both sides were heard in the matter and documents on record gone through.

Admittedly, the Appellant opened the subject Savings Account in the name of the Respondent.  Presumably, while opening the said account, all the requisite documents were obtained from the Respondent by the Appellant.

Since the name of the Respondent itself was suggestive of the fact that it was a Club, there was no room for any sort of ambiguity about the nature of its activities in the mind of the Appellant while opening the said account.

In any case, there is nothing to show that Banking Rules & Regulations do not permit opening of Savings account in the name of a Club.  On the contrary, it transpires from the impugned order that the Appellant, wittingly or otherwise, submitted a copy of Circular dated 10-02-2015 before the Forum below wherein it was clearly mentioned that Savings accounts could be opened in the names of Association/Club Regiment fund etc.

Further, the Respondent placed before us the relevant portion of Balu Sarkar’s ‘Banking Theory Law & Practice in India’ wherein too, it is mentioned that Savings account can be opened in the name of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Incidentally, the Respondent is registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961.

It is though contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that its Internal Auditor asked for due clarification regarding credit of interest to the account of the Respondent and following this, the entire interest amount credited to the account of the Respondent was reversed, no documentary proof to that effect is placed before us. 

Be that as it may, simply because the Internal Auditor sought for due clarification in the matter, it was highly unprofessional for the Appellant to swung into action swiftly without first ascertaining the legal position of the matter in this regard.

It also transpires that the Respondent made some correspondences with the Appellant objecting to such unilateral deduction of amount from its account.  At that time too, the Appellant, after ascertaining relevant Rules and Regulations, could reverse such debit entry.  However, it did not do so compelling the Respondent to take legal recourse incurring huge expenditure. Bank is bound to pay compensation for lapses committed by it [2018 (2) CPR 430 (NC) relied upon].

It appears that the Ld. District Forum has passed a reasoned order in the matter.  In view of this, we dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.