Vijender Jain, J - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the finding of the trial Court. Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,85,970.30. The respondent, in ter alia, pleaded in the plaint that respondent was authorised to collect fees deposited by the students and according to the respondents a bank account was opened with SBI main branch of the appellant and another account was open in Greater Kailash, Part-I branch of appellant. It was pleaded in the suit that in the account of the respondent the fee and other charges of the students by various institutions were deposited and the respondent was utilising the amounts which were credited in the said account. The respondent also averred in the plaint that at no time they executed any document seeking any overdraft facility from the appellant bank. The respondent had to file a suit on account of the mistake of the appellant's officials as an amount in excess of Rs. 22.23 lakhs was shown in the account of the respondents in August, 1993. The closing balance in the account of the respondent as on 31st August, 1993 was Rs. 119.80 lakhs. However, on account of the error on the part of the appellant's officials the said balance was shown as Rs.142.63 lakhs. The error was detected by the officials of the respondent on 9th September, 1994 and communicated to the respondent. It is the stand of the ; respondent that immediately when it was brought to the notice of the respondent that extra amount was credited in the account of the respondent, the extra amount of Rs. 13,62,070/- was paid by the respondent to appellant. In spite of making prompt payment by the respondent, the appellant was not satisfied. The appellant demanded interest from the respondent amounting to Rs. 1,91,0947-, treating the extra amount as overdraft to the respondent. As a matter of fact, the highhandedness of the appellant was writ large on the record instead of demanding the said amount, said amount was debited from the account of the respondent in the Greater Kailash branch of the appellant even without giving any notice to the respondent. As the appellant has debited the amount from the account of the respondent in the Greater Kailash Branch and this amount was illegally debited by the appellant, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming the said amount as well as interest thereon.
(2.) The appellant bank took the plea that under Section 72 of the Contract Act, they were entitled for interest on the said amount as the respondent has used the excess amount deposited in their account, the respondent must pay interest on the said amount. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount as prayed? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of interest, if so, at what rate? OPP (iii) Whether the defendant could debit the said amount as per provisions of Section 72 of Indian Contract Act and other laws as mentioned in the preliminary objection No. 11? OPD (iv) Relief.
(3.) The learned Trial Court discussed Issues (i) and (iii) together. We find no infirmity with the finding of the trial Court. It is the duty of the bank to maintain correct account because maintenance of account is in the domain of the bank. Account holder cannot be held responsible for the mistake which has been committed by the officials of the bank. It is the duty of the bank to reconcile and give true statement of account to the account holder. That duty cannot be shifted to the account holder when the account holder has not availed of any benefit either in terms of overdraft facilities or loan facilities, it was a mistake on the part of the officials of the appellant who have credited more amount in the account of the respondent. Respondent cannot be held responsible for payment of interest, that is the only issue which has been agitated in this appeal before us. In support of his argument, Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Kotrabasappa v. The Indian Bank, AIR 1987 Karnataka 236.;