GURGAON GRAMIN BANK Vs. PARVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the parties. In this case the wrongful debit came to light to the vigilance department of the petitioner Bank six years after search. The question of wrongful debit though disputed before the Fora below, stands settled by a concurrent finding of the two Foras below and we are not going into that issue. The only question that is seriously contested before us is the rate of interest which has been awarded. In deciding this issue, the Fora below have fallen into error in considering that if that amount which has been wrongfully debited to the account of the complainant had been invested in a fixed deposit, it would have yielded substantial gains over a period of ten years. The rates of interest were higher on long term deposits as also removal of the fixed deposit at the end of 5 years would have yielded an element of compound interest because the cumulative amount would have renewed. That, in our view, was not the correct measure of compensation, because the petitioners fail to produce their passbooks before the District Forum and thereafter throughout. It is argued by the Counsel that even if they had obtained the passbooks in the year 1998 carrying such incorrect debits, the poor villagers would not have known that their accounts have been wrongly debited. That is a plea which cannot be accepted. They cannot be deemed to be so ignorant that they would not be getting their passbooks updated at regular intervals.

(2.) IN any event, since the vigilance department of the Bank has found wrong debits, it was the duty of the Bank to reverse the entries and correct the accounts w.e.f. the date on which the wrongful debits were made against the complainants. We are not in agreement with the view of the Fora below that the amount should be deemed to have been reinvested in fixed deposits but, we feel that the Bank should pay interest on the amount. IN our view, interest at the rate of 9% simple will be adequate compensation. The impugned order is accordingly modified. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Since it is stated at the Bar that the respondents have already credited interest at the rate of 5% in our view, the balance 4% should also be paid after adjusting the 5% which they have already paid till the date of payment. The revision petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Revision Petitions dismissed.