STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/20/167 BANK OF BARODA GANDHIBAGH NAGPUR PRESENT ADDRESS - HALDIRAM BUILDING ,1174,C.A. ROAD BHAUSAR CHOWK , GANDHIBAGH NAGPUR 02 ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus DEVENDRA S.O. MANOHARRAO PATIL PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. CHANAKYYA DRESSES KELIBAG ROAD , OPP. NMC PARKING STAND MAHAL , NAGPUR . ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

LEARNED ADVOCATE SHR.MAHENDRA ROY OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/APPELLANT FOR THE RESPONDENT:

LEARNED ADVOCATE SHRI.V.J.DHARKAR OF THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT.

DATED: 29/07/2025

ORDER

1. The appellant, namely Bank of Baroda, have preferred the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, challenging the order passed on 13/02/2020 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/374/2019 (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “impugned order”) of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “learned District Forum”) by which the complaint filed by respondent being complainant namely Devendra Manohrrao Patil came to be partly allowed and the appellant being O.P. were directed to refund the debited amount of 27,000/- and also to pay compensation of 15,000/- for mental and physical harassment as well as 10,000/- as a cost of the proceeding.

2. The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

3. The facts that emerge from the present case are that the complainant is engaged in the business of readymade garments under the name “Chanakya Dresses.” On 30/07/2018, the complainant placed an order with Mr.Sevakbhai Premani for 300 leggings at 90 each, amounting to 27,000/- and was instructed to deposit the said amount into Account No.30950100013754. On 31/07/2018, as the complainant was suffering from jaundice, he directed his employee, Mr.Moreshwar Mohadikar, to deposit the said amount through the ATM of Bank of Baroda, Gandhibagh Branch, Nagpur. At 11:26 a.m., Mr.Moreshwar attempted the deposit, but the ATM displayed a “Transaction Failed” message and the amount was not returned. On informing the security guard, he was advised to contact the bank manager, who instructed him to wait a day and verify whether the money was credited. On 01/08/2018, Mr.Premani denied receipt of the amount. So, a written complaint was lodged with the bank and the manager assured its redressal within two days. However, despite repeated visits on 09/08/2018 and 16/08/2018, the issue remained unresolved, and the bank refused to provide the ATM CCTV footage and the account statement dated 31/07/2018. The complainant was left with no alternative but to lodge a police complaint. Later, the bank provided ATM transaction details confirming deposit acceptance, but failed to give the CCTV footage or account statement. The complainant then issued a legal notice dated 03/09/2018, to which the bank gave an evasive reply. Hence, the present complaint has been filed seeking refund of 27,000/- with 15% interest, 10,000/- as compensation and

25,000/- towards costs.

4. It is material to note here that the Opposite Party was failed to remain present before the learned District Forum, instead notice duly served upon them. So, by order passed on 25/10/2019, the learned District Forum ordered to be proceeded with the case ex-parte against O.P. As such, the O.P. denied an opportunity to defend the complaint. After considering the evidence of the complainant and documents filed in support thereof, the learned District Forum by impugned order and directed the appellant Bank to refund the debited amount of Rs.27,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental and physical harassment as well as Rs.10,000/- as a cost of the proceeding.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned