advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

Important judgements passed by the Consumer Courts Bank directed to compensate the customer for fraudulent withdrawals made from his account. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2210 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 21/02/2017 in Appeal No. 83/2014 of the State Commission Punjab)                                          1. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH COLLEGE ROAD, BARNALA DISTRICT-BARNALA PUNJAB-148101                                                  ...........Petitioner(s)                                            Versus     1. GAURAV GUPTA S/O. SH. SAT PAL GUPTA, R/O. HOUSE NO. 10, 16 ACRE, NEAR BUS STAND, BARNALA DISTRICT-BARNALA PUNJAB-148101                                                 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT      HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER Dated : 01 May 2018 ORDER 1.       Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the State Bank of India, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 21.02.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 83 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 19.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 265, dated 20.09.2012, and, has, thus, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.   2.       In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, a Lecturer in the Education Department of the State of Punjab, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not conducting proper in-house enquiry into the incident of withdrawal of a total sum of ₹77,000/- from his savings bank account by use of the ATM Debit Card, issued by the Petitioner to him, seven times at three different ATM machines, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to reimburse to the Complainant a sum of ₹77,000/-, debited to his account, along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization. 3.       The short ground, on which the correctness and legality of the orders passed by the Fora below is questioned by Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that the said orders are vitiated because the same are based on factual infirmities.  It is asserted by Learned Counsel that the observation by the Fora below to the effect that ATM machines used were installed at a distance of 316 Kms. from each other, and, therefore, it was humanly impossible for any fraudster to use the ATM card at two different places, namely, Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh and Jhansi in Madhya Pradesh, is factually incorrect, inasmuch as all the machines in question were installed in the same vicinity around Jhansi Railway Station, Lucknow Circle, Uttar Pradesh.  In support of the submission, Learned Counsel has referred us to certain documents, including the letters exchanged between the Petitioner and the other two Banks, who had provided the facility of use of the ATM machines to Petitioner Bank’s card holders. 4.       Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the material on record, though some documents tend to support the stand of the Petitioner in so far as location of all the ATM machines is concerned, which seem to have been installed in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, but regard being had to the fact that admittedly the Petitioner Bank had lodged the complaint with the Police Authority only on 13.12.2012, i.e. after a lapse of almost three months of receipt of complaint from the Complainant, and there being nothing on record to show that the Bank had conducted any enquiry into the fraud played with the Complainant, and above all the quantum of the amount involved, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of Revisionary Jurisdiction conferred on this Commission to disturb the afore-stated concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below.     5.       However, having regard to the overall scenario of the case and the fact that 50% of the amount, as awarded by the District Forum, was deposited by the Petitioner in the State Commission at the time of filing the Appeal, we are of the opinion that direction with regard to payment of interest on the principal amount in favour of the Complainant deserves to be set aside.  We order accordingly. 6.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 7.       The principal amount, as awarded by the Fora below shall, be remitted by the Petitioner directly to the Complainant by means of a demand draft drawn in his favour, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  It appears from the record that the State Commission had permitted the Complainant to withdraw a sum of ₹25,000/-, deposited by the Petitioner at the time of filing the Appeal.  If the said amount had been released to the Complainant, it will be open to the Petitioner Bank to account for the same while remitting the balance amount to him in terms of this order. 8.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.                                                                                                              Top

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela