Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N.Jadhav
Buniya Devi Chauhan Through Power of Attorney Holder Dharmendra Shambhunath Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Central Bank of India – Respondent
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
2. Petitioner Buniya Devi Chauhan is original complainant before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. Complaint is filed against Respondent No. 1 – Bank. By order dated 14.09.2016, the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra allowed the Complaint directing the Bank to refund Rs. 25,28,515/- alongwith 6% interest per annum from complaint date and directed payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- to Petitioner. The Bank being aggrieved appealed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The Appellate Authority by order dated 03.01.2022 allowed the Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 – Bank and set aside the order passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. Buniya Devi therefore filed Review Application before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which stood dismissed by order dated 12.04.2022. Hence, being aggriev
A bank's allowance of withdrawals from a joint account involving an illiterate individual violates regulatory norms, necessitating accountability for negligence and fraud.
(1) National Commission – The powers of the National Commission are very limited.(2) Evidence on Record – In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to inter....
National Commission – Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited.
The bank's failure to verify the authenticity of debit vouchers led to unauthorized withdrawals, constituting a deficiency in service and warranting compensation for the complainant's losses.
(1) Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to institution of civil suit in Civil Court. (2) Requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut doors of any forum created under....
“In new of facts and circumstance of the case if mater is found to be a subject of fresh consideration, remand of matter held justified.”
A consumer complaint against a deceased individual is not maintainable, and a legal heir cannot be held liable for debts without evidence of a direct transaction or relationship with the complainant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
