Key Points: - The State Commission held that the bank failed to supply details of credit card transactions and kept the saving account on "Hold on Funds," which amounted to deficiency in service. (!) - The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission’s finding, concluding there was deficiency in service and that the appeal had no merit. (!) (!) - The original complaint sought compensation for mental agony, harassment, and other relief, including specific amounts and costs; the appellate court considered and rejected the appeal against the State Commission’s partial relief. (!) (!) - The complainant's saving account was kept on hold and funds were transferred to credit card account, leading to bounced cheque for car loan instalment. (!) (!) - The bank argued there was no deficiency in service and that all actions were in accordance with procedure, including holding funds under Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872. (!) - The appellate decision states the appellants’ arguments about having provided statements and notices, but the State Commission’s conclusion of deficiency was not illegal. (!) - The order of the Tamil Nadu State Commission dated 14.03.2022 partly allowed the complaint and directed payment of compensation and costs to the respondent, which the appeal sought to challenge. (!) (!) - The appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal. (!)

How to determine whether a bank’s failure to supply transaction details constitutes deficiency in service?

What is the outcome when an appellate court upholds a State Commission’s finding of deficiency in service?

What are the rights and remedies for a consumer when an opposite party refuses to provide requested banking transaction details?