Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
N. KOTISWAR SINGH C.J., MOHAMMAD YOUSUF WANI,
Sheikh Imran Farooq S/o Sheikh Farooq Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd Corporate headquarters – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mohd Yousuf Wani, J.
01. Impugned in the instant appeals filed under the provisions of Section 17 of Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (now repealed & hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) is the order dated 28th of February 2018 passed by the J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the Commission for short) on a consumer complaint No. 133 of 2012 filed by the appellant/complainant against the Respondent-Bank/opposite parties whereby the learned Commission inter alia passed the following directions at para Nos. 20, 21 and 22 while disposing of the complaint:-
20. “It is not in dispute while assessing the amount of mental agony the complainant has undergone, is visible from the way he has been treated by the bank. It is also a fact that he has suffered a loss of business due to non- availability of funds. Even though, in his complaint he has not quantified the amount of loss that he has suffered as he has restricted his prayer only to the extent of granting Rs.60.00 lacs. Keeping in view these facts, we allow a damage of Rs.15.00 lacs (rupees fifteen lacs only) to be paid to the complainant. The amount of Rs.42,
The bank's failure to verify the authenticity of debit vouchers led to unauthorized withdrawals, constituting a deficiency in service and warranting compensation for the complainant's losses.
A bank's allowance of withdrawals from a joint account involving an illiterate individual violates regulatory norms, necessitating accountability for negligence and fraud.
“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.”
National Commission – Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited.
Banks must authenticate transactions rigorously; failure leads to liability for unauthorized fund transfers.
Banking services – Deficiency in service – Depriving senior citizen of lawful money for about five years.
(1) Payment – Without receiving the payment from the issuer of the payment warrant, the OP Bank cannot be compelled to credit the funds to the Complainant’s account.(2) Custodian – The OP Bank is the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
