IMPORTANT POINT
Bank cannot make its customers suffer on account of technical reasons.

S.K. Naik, Member—This revision petition has been filed by Mrs. Jasmine W. Surendra (a senior citizen), who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (District Forum for short), against the order dated 4th of March, 2010 of the Chennai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission has reversed the District Forum’s order dated 30th of December, 2008 whereby it had allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent/opposite party/Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner/complainant besides Rs.3000/- as cost of the litigation.

2. In her memo of revision petition, the complainant has submitted that she would not be able to travel to Delhi for the hearing of her petition due to her advanced age and ill-health and has requested that the petition be decided on the basis of records. However, in the interest of justice, this Commission appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the Commission on behalf of the complainant.

3. The facts in brief, as borne out from the records are that the complainant/petitioner was holding an ATM-cum-Debit Card issued by the respondent/opposite party/Bank. Despite availability of sufficient funds in her account, when she along with her husband went for shopping at Mumbai and tried to make the payment by using the said ATM card, the same was reported to be inoperative, resulting in unwarranted embarrassment and humiliation to them at the shopping center in the presence of other shoppers. She returned to Chennai thereafter with the injured self-esteem. In Chennai too, when on the 27th of May, 2005 she attempted to withdraw some cash from the Bank’s ATM kiosk located in the Branch premises, the machine reflected zero balance even though she had balance of Rs.82,292.67 in her account. The matter was taken up with the higher authorities of the Bank and the Divisional Manager vide his reply dated 31st August, 2005 informed her that the matter has been taken up with the centralized office at Bangalore but no information with regard to the outcome of any inquiry was communicated. Besides, the complainant also faced repeated unpleasant treatment in the hands of the officials of the opposite party/Bank in her dealing for the withdrawal of cash from her account. Despite being a senior citizen, she was made to stand in the queue and was not tendered the appropriate denomination of currency notes, causing great inconvenience in the form of counting the bundles of the notes given to her. To top it all, the Bank officials on another occasion (31st of January, 2007) falsely alleged that she has taken away the token issued to her. Further, when the opposite party/Bank was approached by the complainant’s husband for the issue of two demand drafts on 20th of March, 2007, he was directed to come again at 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon for collecting the drafts.

4. The series of incidents caused tremendous harassment resulting in dissatisfaction of the service rendered by the Bank and, therefore, the complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party/Bank, claiming a compensation of Rs.19.03 Lakhs on various counts. The District Forum on consideration of submissions made by both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/bank in the manner indicated above.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of District Forum, the opposite party/Bank filed an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed a reversal order, thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioner/complainant.

6. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal filed by the opposite party/Bank nullifying the order passed by the District Forum in her favour, the complainant has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the recor