ORDER

Dated: 02/06/2026

Per: Rai Kumar Pandey, Presiding Member

1. The Present First Appeal (F.A.) has been filed under section- 47(a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection, Act, 2019 ("the Act") against the order dated- 13.03.2023, passed by the Learned (Ld.) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short "the District Commission") in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 225 of 2017, whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were before the Ld. District Commission, "Sri yatish Narayan Roy" is complainant/ Appellant. "The Branch Manager SBI" is Respondent/ opposite party.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant, are that the complainant deposited following insurance with the opposite party (O.P.): -

i. TATAA.I.G. Life Insurance,

ii. S.B.I. Life Insurance,

iii. Bajaj Finance Company

It was stated that all insurance money to be deducted from his account, but the O.P. bank illegally deducted money about 7 times from his account, which came to Rs. 2700/-. It was further stated that the complainant had complained to O.P. on 01.02.2017 and 23.03.2017 and also complained orally on 3 consecutive dates, on which he assured by the bank that his money would returned back in his account. It was alleged that due to deficiency on part of the O.P.-bank the complaint suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence he filed a Consumer Complaint against the O.P. bank seeking reliefs against the bank and it was prayed that the O.P. bank be directed to refund his illegally deducted amount with interest along with compensation amount ofRs. 1,00,000/-

4. On being issued notice, the complaint was contested by the O.P. by filing Written Version (W.S.) before the Id. District Commission contending that, the C.C. was not maintainable either in law or on facts. There was no cause of action, against the O.P. and its officials. On merit it was stated that, the complainant had given mandates to the financial organizations for collecting the amount from his savings bank account, maintained with the Jagdeo Path branch of the O.P.-Bank but due to non-availability of the sufficient fund the mandate executed by the complainant was not complied with, hence the charges are deducted towards failure of mandate transactions as per the norms of the bank. It was further submitted that, the complaint was not maintainable and was fit to be dismissed.

5. The Ld. District Commission vide order dated- 13.03.2023 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party as under: -

"Hence, we consider to allow this complaint petition to the extent that O.P. is directed to pay altogether including compensation and cost Rs. 6,500 (Six thousand & five hundred only) alongwith 6% interest per annum accrued thereon from the date of filing of this case i.e., 30.05.2017 to the complainant within two months of this order. In case of non-compliance, the complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount in due process of law."

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Appeal mainly on the grounds that, the learned Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant continuously approach the opposite party and requested to disclose the reason for deducting amount from the account of the complainant and further requested to refund the amount deducted from the account of complainant unauthorizly (unauthorised). But the respondent has not taken any step to redress the grievance of the complainant and the respondent has not followed the policy of the bank. The complainant continuously peruses the matter and ultimately filed the complaint here the complaint concluded after six years approx. The complainant continuously appeared before the Forum. The complainant suffered a lot and also sustained huge mandatory loss in perusing (pursuing) the said matter. This fact is not appreciated by the learned Forum, and it has been prayed that, to modify the order dated 13.3.20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document