Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
State Bank of India —Petitioner
versus
Dr. J.C.S. Kataky —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3073 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 23/08/2016 in Appeal No. 33/2015 of the State Commission Assam)
Decided on 3.5.2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Siddharth Sangal and Mr. Abhay Tayal, Advocates
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINT
Powers in exercise of revisional jurisdiction are used only if there is a jurisdictional error or material defect in orders passed by Consumer Fora below.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Banking—ATM card—Deficiency in service—Misuse of ATM Card—Once complaint was made citing specific incidents of unauthorised withdrawal, it was duty of Bank to have carried out necessary verification in the matter rather than washing their hands off from whole episode—There has been deficiency in service on part of Bank vis-à-vis consumer/complainant—Consumer Fora below have made correct appreciation of facts and circumstances on record which deciding complaint in favour of complainant—Powers in exercise of revisional jurisdiction are used only if there is a jurisdictional error or material defect in orders passed by Consumer Fora below—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 19 and 20)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 33/2015, “State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Dr. J.C.S. Kataky”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 13.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jorhat, allowing the consumer complaint No. 7/2014, filed by the complainant/respondent, was upheld.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is the holder of a savings bank account No. 10354169732 with ATM facility in the RRL Jorhat Branch of the State Bank of India. As stated in the consumer complaint, somebody claiming to be calling from the Mumbai office of the State Bank of India, telephoned the complainant at 08:00 PM on 08.08.2012, stating that his ATM card had been upgraded and its new number was 5196200003281481, valid from August 2012 to August 2016 and that the PIN will be sent through email and that his old ATM card had been blocked. The said caller informed the complainant about the new PIN as well. The said person also stated that the new ATM card had been delivered to the concerned branch office. After some time on the same day, the complainant received a message on his mobile phone that his ATM card had been used for purchase worth Rs.976/- on POS000000000015131. A similar message of purchase worth Rs.769/- on another POS was also received thereafter. The complainant transferred the remaining amount in his account to his another account in the State Bank of India through internet banking. On making online verification, he found that his savings bank account No. 10354169732 had been debited with another amount of Rs.28,949/- but no message had been received pertaining to the said amount.
3. On the next morning, the complainant contacted the SBI branch at Jorhat and on their advice, lodged an FIR with Pulibar Police Station. A case was registered vide C/No. 151/12 under section 420 IPC. After investigation, the Police gave report that they could not trace the culprit and they submitted the same to the court. The complainant approached the banking ombudsman as well, but they informed him vide order dated 11.03.2014 that the complaint had been closed. However, they stated that the complainant was free to approach any other forum of competent jurisdiction. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming refund of the amount of Rs.28,949/- alongwith interest @11.5% p.a. and also litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-
4. In their written statement filed before the District Forum, the OP Bank stated that there was no record or evidence of any call made or SMS sent to the complainant by them. The OP stated that the complainant could verify and inspect his account at the concerned branch of SBI. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, concluded that a sum of Rs.30,694/- (Rs.976/- + Rs.769/- + Rs.28,949) had been debited from the account of the complainant in the State Bank of India on 08.08.2012 at 8:00 PM by unknown miscreants, without the knowledge of the complainant. The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not trying to trace-out the transactions at the concerned point of sale. The District Forum ordered that a sum of Rs.30,694/- with interest @10% p.a. from 08.08.2012 should be paid to the complainant alongwith a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. Notice of the revision petition was sent to the complainant/respondent who appeared in
