Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, CJ, PINKI, J
CANARA BANK – Appellant
Versus
MUKESH GUPTA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent withdrawals from bank account. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. bank's responsibility and customer negligence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evaluation of bank's adherence to procedures. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's findings on deficiency in service. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. final decision on appeal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“The brief facts as stated in complaint are that complainant has a saving bank count number 0390101082503 with OP1 at their local branch i.e. OP2.
It is alleged that complainant was approached by a person namely Mr. Arvind Kumar on 15.06.2010 through telephonic conversation who purported himself to be team leader with city bank and offered personal loan to complainant. On 16.6.2010 the said Mr. Arvind Kumar sent his executive Mr. Naveen Sharma to the office of the complainant to collect the documents required for processing the personal loan. The complainant provided him the following documents: -
a) A copy of Pan Card
b) A copy of Voter Identity Card
c) A copy of the Passport
d) Salary slips for the month of March, April, May 2010
e) Photocopy of the Bank Passbook (A/c No. 0390101082503) Can
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
