STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/224/2023 SRI BAIDYA NATH SINHA ROY AND ANR.

PRESENT ADDRESS - IA-93, SLAT LAKE, SECTOR-III, PURBACHAL, BIDHANNAGAR,WEST BENGAL.

SMT. BHARATI SINHA ROY PRESENT ADDRESS - IA-93, SALT LAKE, SECTOR-III, PURBACHAL, BIDHANNAGAR,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IN CHAIR & ANOTHER PRESENT ADDRESS - BLOCK-B, 8TH FLOOR, SAMRIDDHI BHAVAN, STRAND ROAD, BBD BAGH, NORTH PORT, ,WEST BENGAL.

THE CHIEF BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PRESENT ADDRESS - PBB, SALT LAKE, HA-291, SECTOR-III, BIDHANNAGAR SOUTH ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAJES GUHA RAY , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SANTANU SAHA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SRI BAIDYA NATH SINHA ROY AND ANR., KAUSTAV CHATTERJEE (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

STATE BANK OF INDIA REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IN CHAIR &

ANOTHER, Deblina Lahiri. (Advocate)

DATED: 21/04/2026

ORDER

Mr. Rajes Guha Ray, Judicial Member

1. This appeal has been preferred against the final Order/Judgment dated 24.05.2023 passed by Ld. Additional D.C.D.R.C., Rajarhat (New Town) North 24 Parganas in complaint Case No. CC/161/2023 dismissing the case as not maintainable etc.

2. The backdrop of this appeal is that the appellants/complainants have a regular joint savings bank account bearing no. 10021600089 with the State Bank of India, the Respondents/OPs herein. As on 23.12.2023 the Appellants/Complainants had balance of Rs. 12,14,695.01.

3. On 29.12.2022 the Appellant/Complainant No. 1 received a phone call disclosing identity of the caller as Chief Branch Manager of the Respondent No. 2 asking information with regard to the aforesaid Bank Account for the purpose of updating KYC details and the perpetrator managed to persuade him to divulge the Account no., IFSC Code etc. On the next day i.e. on 30.12.2022, doubting veracity of said call wrote a letter to the Respondent/OP No. 2 requesting for blocking any transactions from said savings account and linked debit card. On that day as per advice of the Bank official he updated the account and found total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by two separate transactions of Rs. 5,00,000/- each have been debited from his account. Thereafter, on that day the Appellants submitted a letter of caution to the Chief Manager- Respondent No. 2 with an eye to get the lost money back, but the Respondent No. 2 refused to receive the letter and asked them to lodge FIR first. Accordingly, the Complainants/Appellants lodged FIR with the Police Station on that day. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 2 acknowledged the said letter of caution on 04.01.2023.

3.1. Although the Appellant went to the Bank at 10 A.M. on 30.12.2022 but the Bank officials directly refused to receive the letter on that very date ignoring their liability as Nationalised Bank and flouting the notification dated 06.07.2017 issued by RBI to all Banks and financial institutions. In the meantime the fraudster misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the same day i.e. on 30.12.2022. The Complainant/Appellants requested the Chief Manager of the Bank to take immediate steps so that they can get their lost amount returned, but the Chief Manager did not take any steps and they are instructed to lodge a GDE in local police station.

3.2. So, the Appellants/Complainants filed the complaint case praying for Rs. 10,00,000/- to be paid by the Respondents/OPs with the Appellants/Complainants or to credit to the joint accounts of them, for compensation, litigation cost etc. taking the plea of gross negligence, deficiency in service etc. on the part of the OP/Bank.

4. On admission hearing of the case Ld. Commission below dismissed the case holding that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the case and as such the case is not maintainable.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order the Appellants/complainants have filed this appeal inter alia on the following grounds-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL i) that