BENGALURU: The Consumer Commission directed IndusInd Bank to refund Rs 31 lakh misappropriated by the ‘Relationship Manager’ of the bank along with interest, in addition to Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation cost to RC Srikanth (83), retired chief engineer of PWD, residing at Gavipuram Extension in the city.
As mobility was restricted from 2019-2021 due to Covid-19, complainant Srikanth, after receiving a redemption amount of Rs 31 lakh from Sundaram Finance Mutual Fund in his SB account, issued two cheques in favour of the bank, with a duly filled form, to convert it into a fixed deposit (FD) in his daughter’s name. He gave the instructions to relationship manager Nagendra Shastry, who visited his house for doorstep service.
When he did not receive the FD certificates, he complained to the bank in August 2021, and only then came to know that the manager had allegedly committed fraud. The 3rd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed the order recently to pay Rs 31 lakh with 7 per cent interest per annum to the complainant. It also directed the bank to pay Rs 20,945 towards demand draft charges deducted from his account.
Alleging non-receipt of FD certificates, the complainant sent a legal notice, calling upon the bank to make necessary arrangements to pay Rs 31 lakh. The bank replied, disowning its liability to pay the amount.
The Commission, comprising president K Shivarama, members KS Raju and Rekha Sayannavar said: “We feel since the bank is responsible for the act of its employee, it is liable to return the amount deceived by Shastry while discharging his duties. Hence non-refund of the same amounts to deficiency of service.”
Contending that it is not a consumer dispute, and the amount has been debited from the complainant’s account since he issued cheques to Shastry for the issue of DDs in favour of beneficiaries, the bank claimed the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he wilfully suppressed the fact that he had several personal transactions with the manager.
However, the commission said: “We feel the complainant had an account with the bank. Further, the
said Shastry was a relationship manager of the bank... Since the complainant opened an account with
the bank, it is the guardian for the account and more responsibility is cast on the bank. Admittedly on enquiry after receiving several complaints, it was found that Shastry had committed fraud and he was kept under suspension. Therefore, for any act committed by an employee during the discharge of his duty, the bank is liable to answer.”