UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Kumkum Rani, President and B.S. Manral, Member
Bank of Baroda – Appellants
versus
Mohd. Qumar – Respondent
First Appeal No.89 of 2021
Decided on 13.1.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Banking services – Deficiency attributed – transfer of amount without consent – On facts, the bank should have obtained the consent of the complainant before transferring the amount to the account of M/s Kavya Seeds, but the same was not done – Thus, the finding of the District Commission is perfect that transferring the amount of Rs.5,98,000/- from the account of the complainant to the account of M/s Kavya Seeds, was a careless act on the part of the bank as well as against the banking rules and regulations and also against the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India – Therefore, the District Commission was justified in allowing the consumer complaint and the District Commission has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.5,98,000/- in favour of the complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from 25.08.2017 till actual realization – The District Commission has also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental & financial agony – Since the District Commission has already awarded interest, there was no question of awarding compensation for mental & financial agony, as both the said reliefs cannot be awarded together – Therefore, the award of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental & financial agony passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside – The litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Commission are quite justified – Therefore, the appeal is to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order is to be modified in the above terms. [Paras 9 to 10]
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER
Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 87 of 2017, titled as Mohd. Qumar Vs. Bank of Baroda and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as such that the respondent/ complainant has a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 06560100016400 with the appellant No. 1. The complainant is carrying on the business of taking land on lease and doing agricultural business. The complainant had supplied wheat to M/s Kavya Seeds, Bazpur and the said firm had given cheque No. 80533595 for Rs.10,00,000/-, which was deposited in the above-mentioned Savings Bank Account of the complainant with the appellant No. 1 on 08.06.2017. The complainant had issued two cheques bearing cheque No. 000011 dated 28.07.2017 for Rs.3,00,000/- and cheque No. 000012 dated 01.08.2017 for Rs.3,00,000/-. On presentation, the said cheques were returned by the appellant No. 1 with the remarks “Refer to Drawer”. The complainant had also stated that on 25.08.2017, a clear balance of Rs.5,98,606.25/- was shown in his account and a sum of Rs.5,98,000/- was transferred in the account of some third party with appellant No. 2 without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant through his counsel had issued notices dated 03.08.2017 and 23.08.2017 to the appellants/ opposite parties, which were duly served, but the appellants neither removed hold from the account of the complainant, nor credited the amount to the account of the complainant. Such an act on the part of the appellants has caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.
3. The appellant No. 1/ opposite party No.1 submitted written statement before the District Commission, alleging that the complainant has not approached the District Commission with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. It was also pleaded that the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer. It was further pleaded that it was informed by M/s Kavya Seeds, Bazpur regarding issuance of cheque No. 80533595 dated 08.06.2017 for purchase of wheat to the complainant – Mohd. Qumar S/o Mohd. Umar, which was encashed by Mohd. Qumar from the account of M/s Kavya Seeds, Bazpur without supplying wheat to the said firm. A complaint regarding this was given to the bank by M/s Kavya Seeds, Bazpur vide letter dated 10.06.2017, alleging that no wheat has been supplied by the complainant to the firm. Since the account of M/s Kavya Seeds has been financed by Bank of Baroda, it becomes the duty of the bank as per Banking Regulations to monitor the suspicious transactions and to safeguard the interest of the account holder. Upon receiving the complaint from M/s Kavya Seeds, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited into the account of the complainant maintained with appellant No. 1 was put on hold by the bank. After knowing the fact that the amount so transferred to his account to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- has been put on hold by the bank, the complainant had issued two cheques to various parties, which were returned with the endorsement of “refer to drawer”. During the process of upgradation of software, some technical error had occurred and taking advantage of the technical glitch, the complainant had withdrawn through ATM’s on 22.08.2017; 23.08.2017; 24.08.2017 and 25.08.2017, an amount of Rs.4,03,000/- during the bank holidays, knowing the fact that the account has been put on hold by the bank. After holidays, when the bank came to know about misappropriation of funds done by the complainant, the remaining amount of Rs.5,98,000/- was transferred by the bank into the loan account of M/s Kavya Seeds, Bazp
Bank – The bank should have obtained the consent of the complainant before transferring the amount to the account of M/s Kavya Seeds, but the same was not done.
(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....
(1) Apparent from the said Statement of Account that no loss has been caused to the Complainant.
“Since the Bank after following the due procedure, transferred the fund through net banking, any deficiency in service on part of Bank ruled out.”
Banking Services – Deficiency in Service – Consumer Dispute – Amount deposited by complainant is at the disposal of Bank & service rendered by bank is not a free service.
“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.”
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.