STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

(1)

Date of institution : 08.06.2022 Reserved on : 13.02.2026 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Patiala) through its Branch Manager, 71, Famez Tower, Giaspur Chowk, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.

…Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Vanshika Aggarwal minor D/o Sh. Deepak Aggarwal C/o Shankar Mill Store, Opp. Upper India Steel, Focal Point, Ludhiana through his father/natural guardian Sh. Deepak Aggarwal …Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Unit – SBI Mutual Fund, Rayala Towers No. 158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600002 through its Managing Director.

…Respondent No.2/OP No.2 (2)

First Appeal No. 492 of 2022 Date of institution : 08.06.2022 Reserved on : 13.02.2026 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Patiala) through its Branch Manager, 71, Famez Tower, Giaspur Chowk, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.

…Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Saksham Aggarwal minor D/o Sh. Deepak Aggarwal C/o Shankar Mill Store, Opp. Upper India Steel, Focal Point, Ludhiana through his father/natural guardian Sh. Deepak Aggarwal …Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Unit – SBI Mutual Fund, Rayala Towers No. 158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600002 through its Managing Director.

…Respondent No.2/OP No.2 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the orders dated 07.12.2021 passed in C.C. No. 425 of 2015 AND in C.C. No. 426 of 2015, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sumit Narang, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. M.S. Bath, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

By this order of ours, two Appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 491 of

2022 and First Appeal No. 492 of 2022 shall be disposed off as there are common questions of law are involved therein. However, for reference the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No. 491 of 2022.

2. Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 i.e. State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBOP), has filed the present Appeal through its Branch Manager to challenge the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant had been partly allowed.

3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the father of the Complainant was having Bank A/c No. 65056941291 with OP No.1 in the name of Shanker Mill Store. The father of the Complainant on the asking of OP No.1 had started to deposit the amount in different Systematic Investment Plans (SIP) of SBI Mutual Funds in the name of the Complainant, to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month in each fund. The details of the same are as under:-

SBI Magnum Equity Fund Growth Folio No. 13108788 SBI Magnum Global Fund Growth Folio No. 13109169 SBI Emerging Business Fund Growth Folio No. 13108695 SBI Magnum Multiplier Plus Scheme 93 Growth Folio No. 13109704 SBI Magnum Sector Funds Umbrella Contra Growth Folio No. 13108822

5. OP No.2 being the Transfer Agent of SBI Mutual Fund Schemes had sent confirmation dated 29.08.2011 regarding enrolment of the Complainant Vanshika Aggarwal in the said schemes. The amount of each SIP was to be transferred from the account of the father of the Complainant i.e. M/s Shanker Mill Store to her account. Thereafter, it was to be credited in the Account of OP No.2-CAMS