GURGAON GRAMIN BANK Vs. GIANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three appeal Nos.127, 128 and 170 of 1995 filed by the Gurgaon Gramin Bank against Giani Ram, Mrs. Parwati Devi and Dilbagh Singh respectively. Though Appeal Nos.127 and 128 of 1995 have been filed against the order dated 6.3.1995 but Appeal No.170 of 1995 has been filed against the order dated 27.3.1995, passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the three complaints have been allowed with the following direction to the appellant-Bank : ". . . . . . . it is ordered that the amount withdrawn from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant shall be deemed to have been refunded and reinvested in the fixed deposit for a period of ten years from the date of withdrawal and on maturity the same shall be paid to him with interest as permissible on the fixed deposits from time to time. "

(2.) The complainants were having Saving Bank Accounts in their names with the appellantbank, in which accounts they had been making periodic deposits. Even though they did not make any withdrawal from their respective accounts, yet on a number of occasions in the Bank records entries had been made showing withdrawals by the complainants. In some other matter, the Vigilance Department was making investigations in the appellant-Bank. Feeling suspicious about these entries also, they made enquiries from the complainants by way of confirmation of the alleged withdrawals. As the complainants had not made any withdrawals, they approached the learned District Forum for refund of the amounts deposited by them in their accounts. In reply, the appellant-Bank pleaded that since criminal cases of fraud, etc. had been registered against the concerned staff members of the Bank and the matter was pending trial, the learned District Forum should not order the refund of the amounts to the complainants. Disagreeing with this plea, the learned District Forum allowed the complaints with the aforesaid direction.

(3.) In the appeals before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank has vehemently contended that since it was an old dispute the Bank should not be directed to make the payment forthwith, much less to refund the amounts by reinvesting the same in fixed deposits.