Back
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORD.
PRESENT
HON,BLE MTS, JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA : PRESIDENT
Mrs. G.T. VIJAYALAKSHMI
: MEMBER
Appeal No.1836l2ol3
The Chairman & Managing Director
Canara Bank Head Office
Through: Canara Bank,
Yediyur Branch, Bangalore
Rep. by its Senior Manager & P.A.
Holder Sri Ghanekar D.G.
Appellant
(By Shri. Raghu S.)
V/s
Wg. Cdr. C.R. Mohan Raj VM (Retd.)
S/o. Late G.N. Seebaiah,
No. 454, Sth Cross, 7th Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore 560070
......Respondent
(By Inperson)
ORDER
Mrs. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA, PRESIDENT
The above appeal is preferred against the order dated
30.11.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.895/2013 on the
file of II Addl. Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bangalore.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred
AppealNo. 183612013
Filed on: 27.12.2013
Disposed on: 02.02.20 I 5
DATED THIS THE O2"d DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
to by their respective rank as arrayed before the District Forum.
ff.,,,-
APPeal No. 183612013
3. It is the case of the complainant that he is the customer of
the OP bank at Yedi5,'ur Branch since 1992 having an SB
account; he was also having debit card issued by the OP bank'
4. It is the specific case of the complainant that on 16.3.2013
he noticed that an amount of Rs. 21,000/- was withdrawn from
his SB account by some unknown person though the debit card
is with him and the pin code is known only to him and the bank
failed to safeguard the amount deposited with it, and therefore,
the complainant is expected to make good the loss of Rs'21,0007-.
5. It is the specific case of the complainant that as the bank
failed to safeguard the amount entrusted to it the OP bank is
expected to make good the loss of Rs'21,000/- by crediting the
amount to his account; the complainant also cancelled the. said
debit card and indicated his decision not to have a new card as
he lost confidence with the bank. Hence the complainant after
having discussion with the Chief Manager of the Yediyur Brach
gave notice to him on 6.4.2013, but, the bank neither replied nor
it complied with the demand. In the circumstances, alleging
deficiency of service, the complainant lodged the complaint
seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs'21,000/- with
interest at l5%o pa from 16.3.2012.
W
Appeal No. 183612013
6. In the statement of version filed by the opposite party, the
opposite party while admitting the contention of the complainant
that he having an SB account with it and with debit card facility,
denied the contention of the complainant that the said amount
was withdrawn without his knowledge and further it is pleaded
that on receiving the complaint from the complainant the bank
blocked the ATM Card facility though the complainant gave a
representation on 6.4.2013 seeking reimbursement of the
amount of Rs.21,000/-, as the complainant failed to furnish the
police investigation report, copy of FIR and final disposal of that
complaint, the OP was not able to take any concrete decision in
respect of the representation given by the complainant.
7. It is also pleaded that the OP furnished the CC TV footage to
the police authorities for speedy investigation; the compiainant
failed to follow up the police complaint and he did not inform the
present status of the complaint, etc. It is further specifically
pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the
opposite party and sought dismissal of the complaint.
8. The District Forum on the basis of the said pleadings and
the evidence adduced and after hearing the arguments deemed it
fit to allow the complaint directing the OP to pay Rs.21,000/- to
the complainant along with interest at 10% pa from the date of
W
Appeal No. 1836/2013
withdrawal that is from 16.3.2013 tilt actual payment with costs
of Rs.2000/-.
g. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the OP is in appeal, inter
alia contending amongst other grounds that the order passed by
the District Forum is not
