1. Case of the complainant is that being an account holder in the respondent Bank bearing account No A/C 4302901232 he deposited sum of Rs, 4, 50,000/- vide deposit slips No.2248903 and No.2868557 but the above said amount was not credited in his account. Complainant further stated that respondent/Bank received Rs, 50,000/- an amount of insurance of his son Muhammad Aziz but the policy has not been delivered up till now and in this way the bank is guilty of providing deficient service. He prayed for the recovery of his deposited amount Rs, 4,50,000/- with the directions for delivery of insurance policy of his son as well as compensation and damages due to deficient service by the Bank.
2. The respondent/bank by way of reply submitted that the matter is already subjudice in the civil court. The deposit receipts are not signed by authorized officer of the bank. The same were issued by a deceased employee namely Usman Ghani for the deposit of cheque instead of cash. About the insurance policy it was asserted by respondent/bank that duplicate policy documents can be issued to the complainant. It was further explained by the respondent bank that Usman Ghani, an employee of the bank was found involved in carrying out duplicate banking/parallel banking who had received amount from the complainant in his personal capacity and not as bank employee whereas the bank has filed civil suit for the recovery of amount against the legal heirs of the deceased employee.
3. In order to prove his case complainant appeared as Pw-1 and submitted affidavit Exh- P-1. He also placed on record deposit slip No.2448903 Exh-P2, Slip No.2668557 Exh-P3, legal notice as mark-A, reply of legal notice Mark-B and photocopy of statement of account as Mark-C. On the other hand respondent produced Masood H Usmani Manager, Eidgah Road, Branch Bank Al-Falah, Sargodha as Rw-1 and placed on the file an affidavit ExhR1. Following documents was brought on record by the respondents:- i. Mark-A Photocopy of Standing Order Request ii. Mark-B Illustration of Benefit iii. Mark-C Insurance Application Form iv. Mark-D Statement of Account for Insurance Premium v. Mark-E Reply of Legal Notice vi. Exh-RI Statement of Account vii. Mark-F Complaint Mark-G viii. Request for Closure of Account Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Following points are to be determined in this case. a. Whether the complainant is an account holder in the respondent/Bank? b. Whether he deposited Rs. 450000/- in his account and the same were not credited into his account? c. Whether the above said transaction was personal between one Usman Ghani and the complainant and Bank has no concern with the same?
5. According to the complainant he deposited sum of rupee 150000/- on 06.1.2012 vide deposit slip NO. No.2248903. On 13.02.2012 sum of Rs. 275000/- was again deposited with bank vide deposit Slip No.2868557 the above said amount total Rs. 425000/- was not credited in his account. On the other hand contention of the respondent/Bank is that both deposit slips referred above are not signed by any authorized officer of Bank. It was further contended that both the receipts are of cheque deposit and not of cash deposit.
6. Stance of the respondent/Bank is that an incident of parallel banking by Usman Ghani, the Bank employee was surfaced who later on died and the Bank has filed a Civil Suit against the legal heirs of the deceased employee for recovery of the embezzled amount. According to the respondent/Bank as a result of connivance between the complainant and deceased Bank employee, this case has been brought before the court and Bank is not responsible for any such fraudulent transaction.
7. I have examined Exh-P2 & 3 both are cheque deposit slips but no cheque Number is mentioned on the same, however, an amount of Rs. 275000/- and 150000/- on 1.6.2012 and 13.2.2012 has been mentioned in the same showing receipt of above said amounts for Account No. 4302901232. Both the receipts bears monogram of Bank Alflah ltd. A stamp of University Road Sargodha Branch along with signatures of Bank employee is quite visible. It is not instance of respondent/Bank that both the receipts are fabricated and forged documents created by the complainant himself. RW-1 Masood Hussain Umsani in his statement during cross examination admitted that ExhP2 and P3 were issued by late Usman Ghani, the Bank employee. The respondent /Bank has placed on record copy of the Civil Suit titled Bank Alflah Limited Vs Mr. Muhammad Shahid etc pending before the court of learned Senior Civil Judge Sargodha wherein signatures of Usman Ghani the deceased Bank employee has been admitted on both deposit slips. According to contents of Para 5 and 6 of above referred Civil Suit "Usman Ghani was considered senior employee of the Bank and was working since 2002 hence he was assigned task of responsibility including opening of accounts and issuance of cheque books.
8. He was having close relations with the customers and after complaints of two customers preliminary checking revealed that Usman Ghani late employee has embezzled various amounts and transferred the same to his personal accounts maintained with Silk Bank Limited defendant No. 5 in account No. 2002911461, KSB Bank defendant No. 6, Account No. 0047-619558-121 and MCB Bank defendant No. 7 Account No. 0562410171001327. It also transpired during formal checking that deceased employee Muhammad Usman Ghani got issued cheque books of various customers. He also quoted his personal address against address of various customers and misused his authority by issuing over two dozen fake "bank assurance: for his personal gain (Including his family)"
9. Another objection regarding these receipts are that it reflects receiving of cheque and not the cash but respondent/Bank has not bothered to place on record an iota of evidence from the Bank that which cheque was received against these receipts. Whereas on the other hand it has been clarified from the complainant side that during the various financial transactions between the customer and Bank a relationship of confidence had been built to this extent that during the course of routine transaction customer do not usually bother to verify the contents of the receipt and description of amount on printed receipt having Bank stamp with signature are considered to be sufficient in this regard. This sort of confidence building has always been the objective of every Bank providing facility to its customers and no one can ever remotely think of shaking this confidence. What cannot be denied in this case is that the above said amount was received at the counter inside the Bank by an employee of the bank and two receipts as mentioned above were issued accordingly.
10. However, this amount could not be credited in the relevant account. According to the record one Usman Ghani, the Bank employee has parallel Banking inside the Branch premises and an exorbitant amount has been traced out in the personal account of the deceased employee. If such situation had happened inside the Bank it is failure on the part the Bank administration to trace out and control the same but in no way the customer on whose cash deposit the Bank's internal financial system is being run, can be held responsible for such parallel Banking carried out by the Bank employee inside the Bank premises. It is categorically mentioned in written statement that Bank Alflah has traced some anomalies in various accounts including account of the complainant.
11. If for the sake of arguments it is admitted to, that any close relationship in personal capacity with deceased employee Usman Ghani was developed with the customer, that too, was due to his official status as Bank employee and not as private person so, the word "connivance" cannot be used for this relationship. In the banking System increase in cash deposit has always been a target of every branch and remained one of the key indicating performance of the Branch Manager, Bank employees usually offer many facilities even out of the way to achieve maximum target including confidence building measures to attract the customers. No one can entrust regularly his earning to an ordinary person of his area. The amount was paid to Usman Ghani inside the Bank premises which have been embezzled by said Usman Ghani, a Bank employee. The Bank is totally liable to pay the same to the depositor. No proof of collusion of the complainant with the said Bank employee except the allegation has been brought on record by the Bank. If the amount has been misappropriated by its employee even then the Bank cannot be discharged of its liability otherwise the whole structure of the Banking system will become a question mark because it is primary duty of the Bank to ensure safety of the amount carried on by the customers inside the Bank premises.
12. The Bank administration should have been more active and vigilant to ensure transfer of amount deposited by the customers in their relevant accounts. Nothing appeared to have been done by the Bank neither at Branch level nor at regional level to keep a vigilant eye on the character and conduct of its employee receiving remittance with the ulterior motive. Banks whether big or small constitute an essential and almost indispensable component of modern social and economic set up. They render vital services to the community and the community naturally feeds them. They must be over vigilant and solicitous about the interests of their customers, departure from such standard causes inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster.
13. The Banks should, therefore, be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above reproach. I have no hesitation to hold that the Bank's service to the complainant was deficient in this case.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank invited my attention to the Bank statement presented and relied by both the parties on the record and stated that an amount of Rs. 150000/- out of claim of Rs. 425000/- was credited in the customer account which simply means that deposit of amount by complainant and its credit to his account is admitted. However, this was quite contrary to the stance already taken when it was totally denied that neither any amount was received by the Bank nor deposit receipts ExhP2 and P3 were issued by the authorized officer of the Bank. According to the entries on page 2 of the said statement a cheque amounting to Rs. 140000/- was received on January 6,2012 along with cash deposit of Rs. 10000/-. In my view this stance and these entries has no nexus with transaction claimed by the complainant. On 6 January 2012 customer might have deposited a cheque amounting to Rs. 140000/- and cash of Rs. 10000/- but the deposit receipt Exh- P2 & 3 are showing the amount of Rs. 150000/- in lum sum , therefore, this amount nowhere exist in Bank statement. Up short of discussion is that complainant has established his case. An amount of Rs, 1,50,000/- and 2,75,000/- were deposited by the complainant in the Bank which were received by the bank employee Usman Ghani who issued receipts thereof Exh-P2 and P3 which have not been denied by Rw-1. The above said amount was not credited in the account of the complainant.
15. Admittedly bank has traced out the amount of Rs, 46,80,000/- in the Bank Account of Usman Ghani which allegedly belonged to the customers of University Road Branch, Al-Falah Bank. It is a case of sheer negligence of the Branch Manager, the Regional Head as well as Audit Department of the Bank. A Fraud and embezzlement on wholesale level was being played in the University Road Branch and these officers badly failed to perform their supervisory duty. Such fraud and embezzlement certainly shake the confidence of the customers. All these activities reflects deficiency in services of the bank, therefore, respondent/ Bank is directed to pay sum of Rs.
16. 425000/- plus 8% interest to the complainant till its final actualization. Respondent Bank is further burdened to pay Rs. 10000/- as legal expenses to the complainant. As for as an amount of Rs.
17. 50000/- for insurance is concerned, according to record this amount has been paid in the account of EFU Insurance Company and duplicate Insurance Policy can be got issued in this regard, therefore, respondent/ Bank is directed to make efforts for its issuance and delivery by the EFU company to the customer. File be consigned to record room after due completion.