Aggrieved by the orders dated 3.08.2010 passed in FA No. 144 / 2010 and order dated 18.02.2011 passed in the review petition 4047 by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the State Bank of India, original opposite party in the complaint has filed the present proceedings purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. 2. We have heard Mr. Jitender Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and the respondent / complainant in person and has given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions. The issue raised in the complaint filed by the respondent herein was in relation to a bank draft which the complainant got issued from the petitioner branch at Salar, District Murshidabad for a sum of Rs.200/- in order to remit the same as fee for competitive entrance examination for the post of executive in the IDBI Bank. As it so happened, due to some inadvertence / mistake, the name of the bank mentioned in the draft was typed out as BDI bankinstead of DBI bank The complainant unmindful of the said mistake sent the same to the concerned bank alongwith his application form and the application form was rejected on the ground that the bank draft so sent was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of making the application. According to the complainant, it was a life-time opportunity for him to take-up the examination and which he has lost due to the mistake / deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. The District Forum on consideration of the material before it, partly allowed the complaint awarding a compensation of Rs.55,000/-, i.e., Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Bank. A review application was filed on the strength of a certificate / communication dated 10.12.10 received by the petitioner bank from the IDBI bank which stated that application dated 10.06.08 was not sent to the project coordinator of the IDBI Bank but the bank was not aware of the fact whether the bank draft no. 09947600000200000015616 was ever sent by the complainant to the bank project coordinator. The review petition was dismissed without taking note of the said communication dated 10.12.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner bank was fair to accept that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the staff of the petitioner bank in the preparation of the bank draft inasmuch as there was a spelling mistake in the name of the payee bank which was typed as IBDI instead of IDBI bank. But his submission is that despite the said mistake complainant has failed to establish on record that he has suffered any loss or injury due to the said mistake or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. He submits that there is no cogent reason to believe about the respondent complainant having actually sent application alongwith said draft or the said draft was returned by the coordinator of the IDBI Bank on the ground that it was not in conformity with the condition or that there was a mistake, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum awarding a compensation as high as Rs.50,000/- is not justified. On the other hand, respondent in person, submits that not only he sent his application alongwith defective bank draft, but his application was cancelled by the coordinator of the IDBI bank vide e-mail dated 11.08.2008. 4. We have considered this aspect and we are of the view that the certificate dated 10.08.10 issued at a much later date is not from the concerned quarters / proper authority, i.e., Coordinator IDBI Bank who was to conduct the examination and that why the certificate may not be cogent piece of evidence. Consequently, we find force in the submissions particularly on the face of e-mail which is soon-after he remitted the application and the bank draft. In our view, the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank is writ large in the present case. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and going by the nature and extent of the said deficiency, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission is excessive and is not commensurate with the kind of injury or loss, complainant can be said to have suffered. Though nothing has been established on record, in our view, the order of the fora below awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation needs to be suitably modified. 5. In the result, revision petition is partly allowed and while affirming the findings of the fora with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank, we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- without disturbing the orders passed in regard to the litigation expenses. The awarded amount shall be remitted by the petitioner bank within 2 weeks by means of a demand draft in the name of the complainant failing which the amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. |