Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Branch Manager, Bank of India – Petitioner
versus
Pradyut Kumar Saha and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.1040 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 29/12/2015 in Appeal No. 641/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 1.5.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chiranjib Bhattacharya, Advocate
For the Respondents:Md. Liakat Ali, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission – Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Revision – Services – Banking Services – On facts, Fora below had considered all the material evidence on record and there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our limited revisional jurisdiction under the Act – Also, the Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and National Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission – Therefore, petition is dismissed. [Paras 10 to 14].
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Bank in the Complaint against the Order dated 29.12.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/641/2014 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has modified the Order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Alipore (for short “the District Forum”) in C.C. Case No.321/2013. The District Forum has directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Complainant for its deficiency in service which in Appeal the State Commission has reduced to Rs.2,25,000/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Original Complainants Nos. 1 and 2) obtained a House Building Loan (A/c No.04775110000045) from the Petitioner Bank in December 2011 with terms and conditions of repayment of the same by debiting EMI of Rs.13,371/- on 28th day of each month, from the joint Savings Bank Account No.404710110005224, Customer I.D. No.118851800, of the Respondents. In this process, the credit balance in the said Savings Bank Account of the Respondents stood Rs.4,539/- on 28.1.2013, which reached to Rs.27,439/- on 23.2.2013 after fresh deposit of Rs.22,900/- by cash by the Respondents on 23.2.2013, wherefrom another EMI of Rs.13,381/- (Instead of Rs.13,371/-) was debited by the Petitioner on 28.2.2013, apparently leaving an opening credit balance of Rs.14,058/- as on 1.3.2013.

3. Assuming such credit balance of Rs.14,058/- in the said Savings Bank Account, the Respondents issued a cheque bearing No.3 dated 1.3.2013 in favour of National Insurance Co. Ltd. on account of Mediclaim Policy No. 102000/48/11/850000039803, but the said cheque was dishonoured by the Petitioner showing the reason of ‘insufficient fund’ in the Savings Bank Account of the Respondents as the Petitioner wrongly debited Rs.11,540/- (Rs.4539/- on 30.1.2013, Rs.162/- on 9.2.2013 and Rs.6839/- on 25.2.2013) from the concerned Savings Bank Account without any intimation to the Respondents, as alleged in the Complaint. It is further averred that as a result of such dishonouring of the cheque by the Petitioner, the Insurance Company cancelled the said Mediclaim Policy by its letter dated 11.3.2013. Then the Respondents sent a legal notice dated 15.5.2013 and 13.6.2013 demanding due compensation for wrong deduction of loan amount and consequential loss of Mediclaim Policy of Rs.2,00,000/-, to which the Petitioner never responded. Feeling aggrieved and alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, Respondents filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

4. Upon notice, the Petitioner entered appearance and filed its written version and contested the Complaint. It is pleaded that due to an electronic error on 23.03.2012, a sum of Rs.13,002/- was wrongly credited to the loan account of the Respondents without correspondent debit to his Saving Account maintained with the Bank. It is contended that a sum of Rs.1462/- was supposed to be credited on account of 1% interest subvention. Thereafter, the interest subvention account of the Bank was reconciled which showed a deficit balance and thus, the Bank came to now about the mistake on 29.01.2013 and accordingly the mistake was rectified by a debit of Rs.11,540/- to the Complainants’ Saving Account. As there was no sufficient balance in the saving account of the Complainants, the System kept on knocking the saving account and mechanically debits Rs.4,539/- on 30.01.13, Rs.162/- on 09.02.2013 and Rs.6,839/- on 25.02.2012 as and when funds were available. The Opposite Party No.2, National Insurance Company contested the complaint on the ground that the Complainant never approached to it for renewal of the policy.

5. District Forum, after giving due consideration to the evidence, material on record and submissions made by le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document