ORDER

APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 33/2015, “State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Dr. J.C.S. Kataky”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 13.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jorhat, allowing the consumer complaint No. 7/2014, filed by the complainant/respondent, was upheld.

2.       The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is the holder of a savings bank account No. 10354169732 with ATM facility in the RRL Jorhat Branch of the State Bank of India.  As stated in the consumer complaint, somebody claiming to be calling from the Mumbai office of the State Bank of India, telephoned the complainant at 08:00 PM on 08.08.2012, stating that his ATM card had been upgraded and its new number was 5196200003281481, valid from August 2012 to August 2016 and that the PIN will be sent through email and that his old ATM card had been blocked.  The said caller informed the complainant about the new PIN as well.  The said person also stated that the new ATM card had been delivered to the concerned branch office.  After some time on the same day, the complainant received a message on his mobile phone that his ATM card had been used for purchase worth ₹976/- on POS000000000015131.  A similar message of purchase worth ₹769/- on another POS was also received thereafter.  The complainant transferred the remaining amount in his account to his another account in the State Bank of India through internet banking.  On making online verification, he found that his savings bank account No. 10354169732 had been debited with another amount of ₹28,949/- but no message had been received pertaining to the said amount. 

3.       On the next morning, the complainant contacted the SBI branch at Jorhat and on their advice, lodged an FIR with Pulibar Police Station.  A case was registered vide C/No. 151/12 under section 420 IPC.  After investigation, the Police gave report that they could not trace the culprit and they submitted the same to the court.  The complainant approached the banking ombudsman as well, but they informed him vide order dated 11.03.2014 that the complaint had been closed.  However, they stated that the complainant was free to approach any other forum of competent jurisdiction.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming refund of the amount of ₹28,949/- alongwith interest @11.5% p.a. and also litigation cost of ₹3,000/-

4.       In their written statement filed before the District Forum, the OP Bank stated that there was no record or evidence of any call made or SMS sent to the complainant by them.  The OP stated that the complainant could verify and inspect his account at the concerned branch of SBI.  The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, concluded that a sum of ₹30,694/- (₹976/- + ₹769/- + ₹28,949) had been debited from the account of the complainant in the State Bank of India on 08.08.2012 at 8:00 PM by unknown miscreants, without the knowledge of the complainant.  The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not trying to trace-out the transactions at the concerned point of sale.  The District Forum ordered that a sum of ₹30,694/- with interest @10% p.a. from 08.08.2012 should be paid to the complainant alongwith a compensation of ₹20,000/- and litigation cost of ₹3,000/-.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.       Notice of the revision petition was