Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
IN THE MATTER OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE V/S SUBODH KUMAR & ANOTHER, decided on Monday, December 19, 2016.
[ In the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, First Appeal No. 820 of 2013. ] 19/12/2016
Judge(s) : VEENA BIRBAL, PRESIDENT
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Citizens Welfare Society Versus Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Others,   01/06/2017.  

  G. Rama Mohan Rao & Another Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural, Marketing & Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another,   07/03/2017.  

  Akbar Malik & Others Versus M/s. Bombaywala & Others,   16/12/2016.  

  Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India,   14/05/2015.  

  Onika Mehrotra & Others Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others,   27/04/2015.  

  M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director M.B. Haja Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government & Others,   12/06/2014.  

  St. Joseph's Hospital Trust Versus The Kerala University Of Health Sciences, Represented By Its Registrar & Others,   07/08/2012.  

  Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Others Versus Babu Lal & Others,   14/03/2012.  

  Mewa Lal Versus State Of Uttar Pradeshthrough Principal Secy. Administration Dept. LKO,   05/01/2012.  

  Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan represented by the Joint Commissioner (Admin.) & Others Versus Prem Narayan Pandey & Others,   29/04/2011.  

  Dr K. Subbaiah Versus C.N. Krishnamacharlu & Another,   29/12/2010.  

  Zee Turner Ltd. Versus Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Others,   16/12/2010.  

  Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab, S/o Mr. Ahmed Aziz Versus The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of Commerce), New Delhi, represented by its Secretary & Others,   18/09/2009.  

  People for Elemination of Stray Troubles by its Convener Dr. Rosario Menezes & Others Versus State of Goa by its Chief Secretary & Others ,   19/12/2008.  

  Shekhar Bajaj & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others,   19/12/2008.  

  Assam Roller Flour Mills Association Versus State of Assam & Others,   12/09/2008.  

  Amara Venkata Subbaiah & Sons, K. Ramaiah & Company, by Partner, Amara Venkateswarlu (died) & Others Versus Shaik Hussain Bi & Others ,   04/07/2008.  

  Ashoka Kumar Thakur Versus Union of India and Others,   10/04/2008.  

  Vijay Mallya Versus State of Maharashtra & Another ,   23/12/2004.  

  Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously known as M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. Versus The Commissioner, Kumanon Division, Nainital, U.P. and others ,   20/02/2004.  

  Dharam Dutt and others Versus Union of India and others ,   24/11/2003.  

  Alka Synthetics Ltd & Another Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),   19/02/1997.  

  Basant Lal Wadehra Versus Union of India,   01/02/1996.  

  Ashish Sahkari Grih Nirman Santiti Versus State of Bihar,   02/02/1990.  

  Radha Krishna Versus State of Bihar,   14/09/1987.  

  Janardan Paswan Versus State,   23/07/1987.  

  Kali Pad A Banerjee Versus State of West Bengal,   09/05/1984.  

  Salil Kumar Mukherjee Durubendra Nath Basu Versus Hindusthan Steel Ltd,   07/04/1978.  

  Subh Narayan Sinha Versus Hari Singh Havalakha,   25/03/1975.  

  Suresh Chandra Marwaha Versus Lauls Private Ltd,   07/08/1972.  

  Subodh Chandra Dewan Versus Managing Committee Belgachia Mahatma Aswini Datta Vidyapith Belgachia,   02/07/1970.  

  For the Appearing Parties: S.P. Srivastava, S. Sarwar Ali, Shashi Kumar Sinha, Advocates.,   07/04/1969.  

  K.C. Verma Versus Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Ltd.,   02/04/1969.  

  Gautamlal Naranlal Versus Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad ,   14/03/1969.  

  Cautamlal Naranlal Versus Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad,   14/03/1969.  

  Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee Versus Union of India,   28/06/1968.  

  Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee Versus Union of India,   28/06/1968.  

  Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Versus State of West Bengal & Others,   29/09/1967.  

  Sunil Kumar Debnath Versus Mining And Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd,   30/05/1967.  

  Sashi Bhusan Ray Versus Pramatha Nath Bandopadhyay,   17/06/1966.  

  G. BASU VERSUS SANKARI PROSAD GHOSAL,   27/09/1962.  

  M.Verghese Versus Union of India(UOI),   27/09/1962.  

  Prafulla Kumar Sen Versus Calcutta State Transport Corporation,   03/05/1962.  

  Ena Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal,   23/02/1962.  

  Suprasad Mukherjee Versus State Bank of India,   26/07/1961.  

  Nand Prasad Versus Arjun Prasad,   16/05/1958.  

  G. Narayanaswamy Naidu Versus C. Krishnamurthi & Another,   23/01/1958.  

  Baleshwar Prasad Versus Agent, State Bank of India,   20/01/1958.  

  Mohammad Ahmad Kidwai Versus Chairman, Improvement Trust,   20/11/1957.  

  Mohammad Ahmad Kidwai Versus Chairman, Improvement Trust, Lucknow,   30/10/1957.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Veena Birbal President1. This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 7.6.13 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (North-East) Nand Nagri (in short the District Forum’) in CC No.286/12 whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant has been allowed.2. Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the respondent No.1/complainant stating therein that he was maintaining a saving bank account with appellant/OP-1 bank i.e. State Bank of India and was also having ATM Card bearing No.6220180063100224540. On 23.2.12 the available balance in the said account was Rs.21 581/-. It was alleged that on 23.2.12 the respondent-1/ complainant had tried to withdraw Rs.10 000/- from the ATM of respondent No.2/OP-2 i.e. Punjab National Bank at Tri Nagar but no money was dispensed from the said ATM. However his account was debited to that extent. The respondent No.1/complainant immediately lodged a complaint at Toll Free No.1800018022 of appellant/OP-1 i.e. State Bank of India vide complaint No. AT 42924264547 and the attending official assured him that amount of Rs.10 000/- would be re-credited to his account within 72 hours. However nothing was done as was assured. Thereafter respondent No.1/complainant made repeated visits with the appellant/OP-1 as well as respondent No.2/OP-2 but no response was given. Ultimately he filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum for reimbursement of Rs.10 000/- to his credit alongwith interest @12% and has also prayed for grant of Rs.40 000/- as compensation for harassment mental pain and agony and Rs.5 500/- as cost of litigation.3. Notice was issued to the appellant/OP-1 and respondent No. 2/OP-2. Both had filed separate written statement. In the written statement appellant/OP-1 had stated that in pursuance to the complaint of respondent No.1/complainant a letter dated 28.4.12 was written to the respondent No. 2/OP-2 asking for CCTV footage of the ATM but the same was not supplied to it. It was alleged that the transaction was confirmed by the ATM Switch Centre Mumbai through mail and a copy of it was supplied to the respondent No. 1/complainant vide letter dated 28.6.12. It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on their part.4. Respondent No.2/OP-2 i.e. Punjab National Bank had also filed its written statement alleging therein that the complaint was not maintainable as the amount of Rs.10 000/- had been transferred back into the account of respondent No.1/ complainant with appellant/OP-1 on 28.9.12.5. Parties had led evidence by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. District Forum observed that since Rs.10 000/- had already been reverted in the account of respondent No.1/complainant on 29.9.12 the only dispute left was interest on the aforesaid amount as well as grant of compensation for alleged harassment mental pain and agony to the respondent No.1/complainant. Accordingly after hearing the parties the Ld. District Forum directed the appellant/OP-1 to pay to the respondent No.1/complainant Rs.100/- per day as per the RBI Directions as there was delay of 189 days in crediting the amount in his account. Further Rs.15 000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs.1 000/- awarded towards costs of litigation.6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid present appeal is filed by appellant/OP-1.7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP-1. It is contended that the appellant/OP-1 was advised by the respondent No.2/OP-2 that the transaction in question was successful and in this regard respondent No.2/OP had also sent EJ log and reconciliation statement stating that there was no excess cash found in the ATM of respondent No.2/OP-2 bearing ATM ID No. D1151300. It is contended that even during the pendency of the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant before the Ld. District Forum respondent No.2/OP-2 had credited Rs.10 000/- on 29.9.12 in the account of respondent N.1/complainant in respect of the transaction in question. It is contended that the amount of Rs.10 000/- was used by the respondent No.2/OP-2 from 23.3.12 to 29.9.12 and compensation and interest if any awarded to the respondent No.1/complainant was to be imposed on respondent No. 2/OP-2 i.e. Punjab National Bank. It is further contended that number of letters were written by appellant/respondent No.1 to respondent No. 2/OP-2 pursuance to the complaint of the respondent No.1/ complainant and appellant/OP-1 rendered all possible help to the respondent No.1/complainant and in these circumstances Ld. District Forum was not right in giving directions to appellant/OP.8. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2/PNB has contended that since the amount had already been credited in the account of respondent No.1/complainant there was no deficiency on its part and the respondent No.2/PNB is not responsible in any manner.9. Respondent No.1/complainant is present in person. He has stated that he was harassed by both the banks i.e. appellant/OP-1 and respondent No.2/OP-2 and he had been also corresponding with both the banks and harassed by both the banks.10. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.11. It is admitted position that respondent No.2/OP-2 had sent Rs.10 000/- to the appellant/OP-1 i.e. State Bank of India on 29.9.12 and immediately on the same date the said bank had transferred the said amount to the account of respondent No.1/complainant. As regards the stand of the appellant/OP-1 that all possible efforts were made by it with respondent No2/OP-2 to find out the result of transaction in question. Ld. Counsel has shown us the documents on record which were also before the Ld. District Forum i.e. E.J. log which is at page 55 of the paper book which was sent by respondent No.2/PNB to appellant/OP-1 showing that the transaction was successful i.e. withdrawal of Rs.10 000/- had been done from the Saving Bank account of respondent No.1/complainant. The other documents relied upon by appellant/OP-1 is the reconciliation statement issued by respondent No.2/PNB dated 24.3.12 showing that no extra cash was found in their ATM meaning thereby that the transaction was successful. Ld. District Forum did not consider the aforesaid document properly. In view of aforesaid documents we find that there was lapse on the part of the respondent No.2/OP-2 i.e. Punjab National Bank in reporting about transaction in question to appellant/OP-1. The respondent No2/OP-2 has not denied that the aforesaid documents were not issued by it to appellant/OP-1. In these circumstances it cannot said that there was any fraud on the part of the appellant/OP-1 as is observed by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order. It is also admitted position that payment of Rs.10 000/- was also sent by respondent No.2/OP-2 to appellant/OP-1 for crediting the same to the account of respondent No.1/complainant. The material on record shows that respondent No.2/OP-2 had wrongly reported to appellant/OP-1 about the transaction being successful. There is a lapse on the part of respondent No.2/OP-2. In the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. District Forum was not justified in directing the appellant/OP-1 to pay Rs.100/- per day as per RBI Directions as is ordered in the impugned order. The directions given in this regard is set aside. As is noted above Rs.10 000/- has already been credited in the account of the respondent No.1/complainant. Since the said amount remained with the respondent No.2/OP-2 i.e. Punjab National Bank we direct the respondent No.2/OP-2 to pay interest @ 9% upto the period the aforesaid amount remained with the respondent No.2/OP-2 i.e. from 23.3.12 to 29.9.12. As regards compensation and litigations costs as is ordered by Ld. District Forum we direct that the 50% i.e. Rs.8 000/- shall be paid by the appellant/OP-1 i.e. State bank of India to the respondent No.1/ complainant and remaining 50% i.e. Rs.8 000/- shall be paid by the respondent No.2/OP-2 i.e. Punjab National bank to the respondent No.1/complainant. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. Appeal stands partly allowed.12. On compliance being done the FDR be released in favour of the appellant/OP-1 after completing the formalities.13. The order be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.14. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum (North-East) Nand Nagri for information.