Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.545 of 2022
Date of Institution : 27.06.2022
Reserved on : 16.11.2022
Date of Decision : 25.11.2022
Sharanjit Kaur D/o Late Jagjiwan Singh Gill, R/o Kothi No.BXX 353,
Jaswant Nagar, Ghumar Mandi, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
……..Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Civil Lines Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana.
2. State Bank of India, Correspondence Department DLF Infinity
Tower C, 10-12 Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City,
Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India.
…..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
First
Appeal
under
Section
41
of
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against
orders dated 18.04.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. G.S. Gill, Authorized Representative
For the respondents: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
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
2
First Appeal No.545 of 2022
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The
appellant/complainant
Sharanjit
Kaur
has
approached this Commission by way of filing the present appeal
under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the
‘Act’) to challenge the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 passed by
the
District
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Commission,
Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the “District Commission”)
whereby the complaint filed by appellant-complainant was
dismissed.
2.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the
parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District
Commission.
3.
The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the
District Commission Ludhiana stating therein that she obtained a
credit card from OP No.2 Bank which had a limit of Rs.32,000/-.
Fraudulent transactions had taken place by withdrawing the amounts
through her credit card on 04.05.2019, 27.05.2019 and 30.05.2019.
An amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn which was more than the
permissible limit whereas it was not possible to withdraw more than
permissible limit of Rs.32,000/-. Meaning thereby an extra amount of
Rs.8000/- was withdrawn. It was also mentioned that said
withdrawals were there on three different dates and that too outside
Punjab. Further it was mentioned that the transactions were result of
fraud in connivance with the bank officials. It was also mentioned that
3
First Appeal No.545 of 2022
the complainant never went outside Ludhiana since the issuance of
the credit card.
4.
The prayer was in the complaint that the OPs be directed
to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- into her account and she be
compensated for the ‘negligence’ and ‘deficiency of service’ on the
part of the OPs.
5.
Said complaint was opposed by the OPs, as notices were
issued to them by the District Commission. In the written statement
filed on behalf of OP No.1 a preliminary objection was raised that the
complaint was not maintainable against OP No.1 as the credit card
was issued by OP No.2. The allegations made in the complaint
against OP No.1 were stated to be false and frivolous. Other
averments made in the complaint were also denied and a prayer was
made in the reply for dismissal of the complaint qua to him. In support
of defence, OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Suresh Kumar Das, Chief
Manager as Ex.RA-1 and closed its evidence.
6.
OP No.2 also filed reply stating therein that allegations of
fraud were there for which detailed evidence were required. It was
also mentioned that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement
with the
