Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1879 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Ganga Nagar Central Coop. Bank Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Pushpa Rani & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11391 of 2006 )
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Ganga Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited
(hereinafter called the \023Bank\024) is an apex body under which
respondent No.2, the Cooperative Mini Bank, Sujavalpur (hereinafter
referred to as the \023Mini Bank\024) carries on its banking activities. The
private respondents herein opened their savings/fixed deposit
accounts with the Mini Bank and after having used the services of the
bank for some time moved for the withdrawal of the money deposited
by them. Their request was, however, turned down on the ground
that there was no balance standing in their accounts. The
respondents also visited the office of the Bank and requested for its
intercession in the matter but this request too was refused. The
depositors accordingly moved a petition before the District Forum, Sri
Ganganagar praying for the release of the amounts deposited by
them and for compensation and interest. Several pleas were taken
by the respondents. The Mini Bank took the stand that the depositors
had in fact no account with them whereas the Bank took the plea that
they were in no way responsible for the management of the affairs of
the Mini Bank which was an independent body and not responsible to
it in any manner. The District Forum in its order dated 20th January
2003 held that the money had been deposited with the Mini Bank and
it alone was liable for the deficiency of services and as such the
depositors were entitled to relief. The Forum however absolved the
Bank (the present appellant) of any liability by observing that there
was no evidence to show that the Mini Bank was in any way working
under the control of the Bank in these matters. The District Forum
accordingly directed the release of the amount of the deposits plus
Rs.2, 000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses
whereas the petition qua the Bank was dismissed. An appeal was
thereafter filed before the State Commission by the Mini Bank against
the aforesaid order and the Commission endorsed the findings of the
District Forum that there had been a deficiency of services qua the
depositors and further held that as the Bank was controlling and
supervising the affairs of the Mini Bank and had guaranteed
repayment upto Rs.10,000/- it too was liable to make good the loss to
that extent and in conclusion observed:
\023In the result the impugned order is modified
to the effect that the respondent No.2 bank
shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay
to the respondent complainants the decretal
amount to the extent of Rs.10,000/- only.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
In so far as the liability of the appellant
bank is concerned that would be governed by
the order of the Forum, but interest chargeable
would be @ 9% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., as
awarded by the Forum. The impugned orders
shall stand modified accordingly\024.
3. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to the National
Consumer Commission by the Bank which maintained the findings of
the State Commission and accordingly dismissed the revision
petitions. It is in these circumstances that the matter is before us.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Bank has raised only one
argument during the course of the hearing. He has pointed out that
before the Bank could be foisted with the liability to guarantee the
repayment up to Rs.10,000/-, it was incumbent for the Mini Bank to
have become a part of the Coffers Card Scheme which required the
completion of certain formalities provided in the Scheme, as a pre-
requisite for its applicability. It has been brought to our notice that
clause 12 of the scheme provided that in order to become a part and
parcel thereof an application had to be filed in form No.4 and the Mini
Bank could only become part of the scheme after the formal approval
had been granted by the competent authority and (it has been
submitted) that as the Mini Bank had not made any request for being
covered by the scheme, the question of the Bank being made liable
up to Rs.10,000/- did not arise. It has also been highlighted as per
the clauses of the scheme that the FDR issued thereunder was
required to be embossed with the words that it was guaranteed up to
Rs.10,000/- by the Bank and this too having not been done, there
was no justification in fastening any liability on the Bank.
5. We have considered the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant in the background of the fact that the
respondents though served notice, did not put in appearance on the
date of arguments. However several days after the judgment had
been reserved, written submissions have been filed which we have
perused and taken into consideration. We however find that there is
no answer to the issues raised by the appellant\022s counsel. We
therefore take it that assertions made by the learned counsel are
admitted and that the Mini Bank had not opted to become a member
of the Scheme which could have fastened a liability on the Bank. We
accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the National
Commission dated 25th July 2005 and that of the State Commission
dated 14th August 2003 and restore that of the District Forum.
6. There will, however, be no order as to costs.