##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1928/2017

Smt. Rajesh Raje W/o Chandrapal Singh Parmar R/o – P/65-A, Professor Colony

Karmeta Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Appellant

VERSUS.

State Bank of India Branch Manager

Karmeta Branch, Katangi Road Near I.T.I.

Jabalpur (M.P.). ... Respondent

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI P.N SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI VIJAY SHAHANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 26.03.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Hon’ble Member, Dr. Monika Malik.

This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter

referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 26.7.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.1, Jabalpur (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 398/2015, whereby the

District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

: 2 :

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant has a saving bank account with the opposite party/respondent- State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’). It is submitted that the complainant never requested for internet banking service and had also not requested for ATM. She was using ATM card but she never wrote to the Bank for change of ATM card and its password. It is further submitted in the month of June, 2014, while the complainant was in her village, she received message on her mobile phone regarding deduction of Rs.48,262/- from her account. Regarding this transaction the complainant gave intimation to the Branch of the Bank at Pawai. It was also informed that the ATM card is with the complainant only. Despite assurance from the Bank that the said amount would be reverted back to her account, the said amount was never credited to her account. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Bank, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking

relief.

3. The opposite party/Bank resisted the complaint and in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the matter is related to the Police. There is no deficiency in service

: 3 :

on part of it and prayer for dismissal of complaint was thus

made.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for complainant argued that she had not requested for ATM card facility but the Bank provided ATM card to the complainant and when the disputed transactions took place, the complainant along with her family had gone on vacation. Due to deficiency in service on the part of Bank, on 3.6.2014 Rs.48,262/- were deducted from her Bank account. The District Commisson did not provide any relief to the complainant, on the other hand it was held that the complainant’s case cannot be tried in summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned

order be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the Bank supported the impugned order and argued that majority of disputed transactions happened on 3.6.2014. The complainant in her police complaint has categorically mentioned that an unknown person called her mobile on phone, informing that Rs.48,262/- have been deducted from her account and the said amount would soon be re-credited in her account. FIR, which was lodged in

: 4 :

the matter is also after prolonged delay. Since the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on part of the Bank, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel referred judgements of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of State Bank of India vs. K.K. Bhalla, II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC) and Raghvendra Nath Sen & Anr. vs. Punjab National

Bank I (2015) CPJ 254 (NC), to support his arguments.

7. We observe that the complainant had approached the District Commission on the ground that the ATM card for the purpose of withdrawal was provided by the Bank. It is alleged that