STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 49 / 2020 State Bank of India through Branch Manager, Nehru Colony Dehradun …… Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Pradeep Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Kunwar Singh Rawat R/o Lane No. 8, Upper Badrish Colony, Dharampur Danda Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. Nehru Gram, Dehradun Presently working in Indian Army, Uttarakhand …… Respondent / Complainant Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Ankit Belwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II Dated: 14/09/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 97 of 2019; Sh. Pradeep Singh Rawat Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by which the consumer complaint was allowed ex-parte against the appellant (opposite party to the consumer complaint) and the appellant was directed to pay sum of Rs. 61,818/- to the respondent – complainant together with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days’, failing which the respondent – complainant was also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the respondent – complainant is serving in Garhwal Rifles, Indian Army and is having Savings Bank Account No. 30228199763 with State Bank of India, Nehru Colony, Dehradun (appellant before us). On 16.07.2017, total sum of Rs. 40,047.20/- was withdrawn from the complainant’s account at Village Bhorgarh, by making clone of his ATM card. This way, on 17.07.2017, sum of Rs. 21,770.80/- was withdrawn from his account at Jwalapuri, Delhi, by making clone of his ATM card. Thus, total sum of Rs. 61,818/- was illegally withdrawn from the complainant’s account. On the aforesaid dates, the complainant was posted in Jammu & Kashmir at Line of Control, where there was no mobile facility, hence the complainant could not get any message regarding withdrawal of the amount. The complainant came to know about the illegal withdrawal of above amount from his account, when he got his passbook updated. The complainant made a complaint with the bank, whereupon the Branch Manager told that the amount would be credited to his account in 1-2 months’. On being assured, the complainant left for his duty. However, the complaint of the complainant was not resolved and the amount was not credited to his account. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The District Commission issued notice to the appellant, but the appellant did not turn up before the District Commission and, consequently, the District Commission vide order dated 25.07.2019 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and allowed the same vide impugned judgment and order dated

01.02.2020 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed ex-parte by the District Commission and the appellant did not get opportunity to file the written statement to rebut the averments made in the consumer complaint. His further submission is that the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh on merit, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

6. We find substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. We find from record that impugned judgment and order has