LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA versus SHYAMA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- 1009· STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SHYAMA DEVI May 5, 1978 (R. S. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.). Vicarious liabilily.-··Legal principle which gorerns the 1:icario11s1liability of an .employer for the loss caused to a customer thro11gh the niisdefneanour or negligence of an enlp[oyee. B' The respondent opened a Savings Bank Account being No. 90001 with the appellant's predecessor, the ln1perial Bank of India at its Allahabad Branch, having·been introduced io the B3nk by one Kapil Deo Shukhla, an employee of the bank and a close neighbour of the resprndent and a friend of her husband, C Bhz.g\vati P;asud. On a suspicion about the entries in the respondent'i- Vass Book- made by the employees of the Bank; which had been confirming, and ratifying them from time to tiffie, the respondent sent a notice dated August. 13, 1948 to tl].e defendant bank: The appellant bank replied by its letter dated 14-8-1948 explaining the·. deposit of several items making up to Rs. 1932-2-0 anj denied the alleged dep.O$i1s of Rs. 105, Rs. 4000, Rs. 8000/- •nd Rs. JOO/- sa\'I ..to have been deposite_d through Kapil Dev Shukla. On .November, 30, 1948, the respo,ndent file.ct: a suit iri forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 15,54]-10 As. iogether wiili pendente lite and future interest from the appellant's predeCessors. The Trial Court found, except for the items of Rs. 105 and Rs. 4000/ - entered in the pass-book the respondent had deposited other amounts _ mentioned in it and ·that the bank was bound by those entries. Holding that the rules were strictly enforced by the bank and if the bank had accerted an amount larger than the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in contravention of its Rules, the respondent was not debarred from claiming sllch deposit, the Trial Court decreed the respon(jen't'S. su.it (in respect of t\vo items) for Rs. 10,040-10 As. togCther with simple intere~t on this amount from January 1st 1946 to August E~ 14,,1947@ Rs. 1-8-0 per cent per annum and fro~ August 15, 1947 to Decen10er, 194-8 nt RS. 7% per annum. lt v:as further ordere'd that the respondent would'. get sin1plc interest on the decretal amount after dedu.:ting Rs. 1986-2·-As. which have been paid during the pendency of the suit, at 6% per annu1n. Proportionate costs was also awarded to the respondent. Aggrieved by the· said Jord~rs.,. tb-e bank appealed: to the Allahabad High Court- and the respondent filed· crosS objections in respect of the amount of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 105/- disalldwed by the Trial Court. The High Court. on reappreciation of the evidence dismissed the bank's appeal and allowed the respondent's cros5 objections decreeing the suit for Rs. 14145-10 annas together with simple interest thereon from January 1, 1946 to August 14, 1947@ Rs. 1-8-0 % 'per annum and from August-15, 1941 to·Decemb~r 1. 1948 at 6% per annum: lt w~-i.s further directed that respondei:i.t' could get pendente lite simple interest from_ the appellant on the decretal amount at 6% per annum and as the an1ount of Rs. 1,986-2~0 had' been paid to the ret>porldent on September, 1950 it would be deducted from the total amount found due to the respondent and the decrctal an1ount :-;caled down pro tarito. Allowing the defendant's .appe~I by certificate_and dismissing the plaintiff's· claim \v.ith regard to Rs. ll ,000/ - (consisting of iten1s . of Rs. 4,000/- plu!I Rs; 7 ,000/-) and interest thereon, the Court 1-IELD : ( 1) The legal principle which governs the vic~rious liability nf an employer fQr the loss caused. to a customer through the inis1emeanour or neglig_ence of an employee are.: (a) The. employer is not liable for 1he act of the servant if the cause of the loss or dan1age aros.e without his actual fault · H. or pdvity or Without the fault or neglett of his t1gents or servants in the course of. their employrQent; (b) the daw~ge complained of must be shown to haYe been caused by any wrongful act of his servant fir agent done \Vithin the scope or course of the servant or agell'fs rn1ploy1nerit, even if the v.-·rongful <ict 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1978] 3 S.C.R. A a1nountccl to a crime; and (c) a master i:; liable for h:s servants fnJ.·1d perpe- trated in the course of master's business ,vheth'!r the fr:i.n::I wao;; for thl' 1naster's benefit or not, if it was committed by the servant in the course of his en1ployment. There is no difference in the liability of the master for wrongs whether for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.