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.