STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/354/2021 null Bank of Baroda PRESENT ADDRESS - Upper Palace Orchards Branch, No.344/8, 4th Main, Bengaluru-560080 Rep. by its Asst. General Manager, Uttam Kumar MishraNCDRC,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Smt.Varsha Ganesh PRESENT ADDRESS - D/o Ganesh Krishnamurthy, Aged about 25 years, R/a No.86/33, RMV Extension, 8th Main road, Bengaluru-560080NCDRC,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2025 PRESENT SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER APPEAL NO. 354/2021

V/s

ORDER

SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.24.02.2021 passed in CC.No.551/2020 on the file of 1^st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under;

It is the case of the complainant that on 10.09.2019 to 13.10.2019 an amount of Rs.48,100/- was debited without his knowledge. Therefore, he alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission for refund of the amount which was fraudulently debited. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the abovesaid amount along with Rs.5,000/- towards damages, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Against which the appellant/Opposite Party is before this Commission.

3. The learned counsel for appellant submits that on each transaction message is going to be sent to the registered mobile number whereas the complainant alleges from 10.09.2019 to 13.10.2019. There are some fraudulent transactions, but, the said fraudulent transactions were not informed to this appellant well within time so that they can block the debit card. Knowing all these, the respondent has finally initiated the complaint alleging deficiency in service to gain wrongfully. There is no any deficiency in service on their part and they are not responsible for the negligence on the part of the complainant/respondent, hence, prays to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

4. Heard the arguments of both parties.

5. Perused the appeal memorandum and certified copy of the Order. It is noticed that the complainant had kept quiet on each transactions without complaining to the bank. We doubt about the very transactions itself as fraudulent. If at all there was a fraudulent transaction, at the first instance itself, the complainant could have complained with respect to the said fraudulent transaction. But no reasons assigned by the complainant why he kept quiet for all these transactions till debit of Rs.48,100/-. The limited liability of the customer and the clauses are not applicable to the case in hand since the complainant has shown negligence in not giving either cyber complaint or a complaint to the appellant for the alleged fraudulent transaction. The respondent has not informed the said transactions as fraudulent as soon as it was took place. The District Commission had not applied its judicious mind and not considered the defence taken by this appellant. When there was no proper explanation with respect to the non-information of the alleged fraudulent transaction, the respondent/complainant is not entitled to ge