Delay of 40 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.  Petitioner – Bank was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Respondent/complainant’s ATM card was lost and in spite of being informed of the same, the petitioner did not lock the ATM card of the complainant.  Thereafter, some unknown person withdrew the sum of Rs.1,19,300/- from the account of the respondent.  Attributing deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner for not locking the ATM card, respondent filed the complaint seeking compensation.  In the written statement filed the petitioner did not dispute the fact  that  the  respondent  had  intimated to the petitioner about the loss of ATM card and the fact that a new card was issued to the respondent  after charging fee of Rs.200/- for the new ATM card bearing No.6220180033000042730. 

District Forum held that the petitioner was deficient in service as it failed to lock the ATM card of the respondent in spite of being informed to that effect by the respondent.  Accordingly, the District Forum directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,19,300/- with interest @ 9% within 30 days of the date of the order along with compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.

Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum.  It endorsed the finding recorded by the District Forum that the petitioner was deficient in service. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has not produced any evidence that he had sent the information about the loss of the ATM card and under the policy framed by the petitioner Bank, respondent was entitled to receive two ATM cards.  This submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the written statement filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner has stated as under :

“It is also not disputed that on giving information by the complainant to this respondent – Bank about loss of ATM card issued to him, the Bank after charging fee of Rs.200/- from the complainant for issue of new ATM card issued another new ATM card bearing No.62201800930000169897.”

No evidence was required to be produced as fact of being informed of the loss of ATM card was not disputed.

Since the petitioner did not take any steps to lock the ATM card issued to the respondent on being intimated, the petitioner is guilty of deficiency in service.  No grounds for interference with the orders of fora below are made out.   Dismissed.