BUDH PRAKASH Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents before us and three other persons who were made opposite parties before the State Commission.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing the case were that it was the case of the complainant that he retired from Delhi Cloth Mill and was given his retirement benefits. Adding to this, the sale proceeds of his jewellery and plot of land, he deposited a total sum of Rs. 5,50,000 in ten FDs with the respondent Bank, allured by one of the employees Shri Vinod Kumar Kashyap, whom the complainant knew. It was the case of the complainant before the State Commission that out of ten FDRs, the complainant could get encashed only one FDR of Rs. 25,000 having maturity date of 22. 3. 1995. Remaining amount of Rs. 5,25,000 was grabbed by the opposite parties before the State Commission in collusion with each other. Seeing this, a Police complaint was filed on 19. 5. 1995. The AGM of the respondent Bank also carried out an investigation. As per complaint filed, it was the case of the complainant that OP No. 4 before the State Commission, namely, Mr. Vinod Kumar Kashyap, in collusion with OP Nos. 5 and 6 before the State Commission, opened a savings Bank account No. 6273/45 in the name of the complainant at Karol Bagh Branch of State Bank of Patiala and the entire amount of the FDRs was deposited in that account after obtaining the signatures of the complainant. It is admitted position that complainant knew Shri V. K. Kashyap very well. It was also alleged by the complainant that the part of TDR/sdr have been credited to the demand loan account and the balance amount has been credited to the Banker's Cheque Account for issue of Banker's cheque. These Banker's cheques have been collected through the same account opened at Karol Bagh Branch. It was his case that OP No. 4 before the State Commission has opened all the demand loan accounts of the complainant and has also closed the demand loan account. It was also his case that various cheques received in the name of the complainant were deposited in the said account at Karol Bagh Branch in the name of the complainant and these amounts were withdrawn by OP No. 4 under the false signature of the complainant. It was his case that he never visited Karol Bagh Branch. It was also his case, that at the time of opening of the account at Karol Bagh Branch of the respondent Bank, his signatures were forged and the name of the person who introduced is one Shri B. M. Gupta, a Special Assistant at the Karol Bagh Branch. It is further stated that Shri B. M. Gupta, also got fictitious photograph and account opening form verified and also issued the cheque book. It is his case that it is OP No. 4 before the State Commission, who has misappropriated the entire amount of the TDR/sdr by getting Banker's cheque issued, according to the complainant he gave TDR/sdr to OP No. 4 on 28. 3. 1995 and the latter ran away with these receipts. It was also alleged that the OP Nos. 4 to 6 took advantage of the position in the Bank and played fraud not only with the Bank but also with the complainant. It was also stated that the case was investigated by CBI on the basis of which FIR was lodged and a criminal case is pending in the Court of Mr. Ajit Barihog, ADJ, Delhi. It is in these circumstances alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and OP Nos. 4 to 6 before the State Commission, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after going through the material on record dismissed the complaint while observing as follows:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order this appeal has been filed before us. It is very pertinent to note that the appellant/complainant has deleted the names of OP Nos. 4 to 6, namely, Vinod Kumar Kashyap, B. M. Gupta and R. L. Maurya, the employees of the Bank, even when they were opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 before the State Commission.