IMPORTANT POINT
Disputed questions of facts can not be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi—judicial consumer protection tribunals.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member—This case relates to deficiency in service alleged against the State Bank of India (SBI) for alleged fraudulent withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- averred by the complainant to have been deposited by him with the Bank.

2. The District Forum vide its Order dated 14.05.2014 had allowed the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.10.2017 had concurred with the District Forum in its findings of deficiency in service on the part of the SBI while partially modifying the award made by the District Forum. This revision petition has been filed by the SBI against the said Order dated 25.10.2017 of the State Commission.

3. On 24.08.2018, after hearing arguments in part and after perusing the record, this Commission had passed the following interim Order:—

Dated: 24.08.2018

ORDER

Partly heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the record.

We are of the view that in this case a detailed report on the whole matter shall be furnished by the chief executive of the petitioner bank or a senior responsible officer indicated by him within a period of two months through counsel.

In case the chief executive indicates that a senior responsible officer shall furnish the requisite report on the whole matter, the level of that officer should be atleast two levels higher than that of the officer with whose approval this revision petition was filed.

List the matter for final arguments on 02.04.2019. (emphasis supplied by us)

4. In compliance of the above - quoted interim Order a report dated 19.03.2019 was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI, which reads as below:—

I, Manmaya Pandab S/o Shri S. Pandab working as Asst. General Manager & Regional Manager, RBO-IV, Zonal Office Howrah, State Bank of India, have gone through the factual aspects and records placed before me pertaining to the complaint lodged by Shri Sunil Kumar Maity and after going through the same I submit as under:

1. A complaint was lodged by a customer on 18.12.2013 (marked as Annexure-A) namely Sri Sunil Kumar Maity, S/o Late Dhirendra Nath Maity maintaining Saving Bank Account a/c no. – 01190010167 with our SBI IOC Township Branch since January 2000. The said customer has alleged that he came to deposit an amount of Rs. 500/- on 15/09/2012 with his friend Mr. S. N. PAL in his a/c no. – 01190010167 but according to him the dealing staff of the bank asked him to deposit the said amount to a/c no. – 32432609504 which was also alleged to be noted over his passbook by the dealing staff.

2. The said Sri Sunil Kumar Maity has further alleged that on 16/01/2013 he came to deposit a cheque no – 670013 of Rs. 3,00,000/- in a/c no. 32432609504(the account no. which is alleged to be noted by the dealing staff) issued by Mr. Prabir Pradhan having account no. – 30608507950.

3. The said Sri Sunil Kumar Maity has further alleged that on 11/12/2013 he came to update his passbook and he was surprised to notice that only Rs. 59/- is lying in that account although he had not withdrawn any amount in that account. Later, according to him (customer), it has been revealed that the alleged dealing assistant on 15/09/2012 had noted the a/c no. – 32432609504 of a different Sunil Maity S/o Late Nani Gopal Maity.

4. It is the allegation of the said Sri Sunil Kumar Maity that the dealing staff of the bank had noted the wrong account no.(32432609504) over the passbook which was of another customer namely Sunil Maity and based on that wrong account number, Sri Sunil Kumar Maity alleged to have deposited the amount in wrong account number.

5. So far as the above allegations of the said Shri Sunil Kumar Maity (Customer) are concerned, I wish to submit before this Hon’ble Commission as under:

a) The allegation of the said Sri Sunil Kumar Maity with regard to noting of wrong account number (32432609504) of another customer namely Sunil Maity over his passbook is not correct and the same is not acceptable. It is evident and self explicit t