1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short, the State Commission), HDFC Bank Limited /Petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 783 of 2018 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Mr. Kailash Nath (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 1/Complainant) and Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 2). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 185/2015 before the District Forum was allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 28.08.2015 is reproduced as under:-

“The Complaint no. 185/2015 filed by Complainant, Kailash Nath is being allowed against Respondent, HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs. 38,500/- alongwith costs of Rs. 1000/-. Respondent HDFC is directed to pay the above said amount to Complainant within a period of one month otherwise, it will also have to pay simple annual interest of 7 percent on the above said amount from the date of passing of order till realization. The Complaint against Respondent Canara Bank is dismissed.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 28.11.2017. The relevant portion of the Order dated 13.02.2017 is reproduced as under:-

“That on the basis of above analysis, I am of the view that present appeal is baseless and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant/respondents is hereby dismissed.

Both the parties will bear their respective costs and expenses of the appeal.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that it is the case of Complainant that he had informed the security guard at the Petitioner’s ATM about his card being stuck in the machine. However, the Petitioner clarified in his communication with the Crime Branch that there was no security guard present at their Jaunpur Branch ATM, nor was any card found when the machine was reloaded on 27.04.2015. He further argued that the Complainant failed to explain how the four-digit PIN was obtained to withdraw money from multiple ATMs of different banks.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae for the Respondent No.1/ Complainant argued that on 25.04.2015, the Complainant used the Petitioner ATM to check his account balance, which showed Rs.77,390.22/-. However, his ATM card got stuck in the machine and did not come out. He informed the guard, Ajay Singh, who advised him to return on Monday due to it being a Saturday. Further argued that when the Complainant visited the Bank on 28.04.2015 to retrieve his card, he was told that no card was found in the said ATM. The Complainant, upon checking his account statement at Canara Bank, discovered that Rs.77,000/- had been withdrawn, leaving only Rs.160.22/- in his account. He contended that this withdrawal happened due to the negligence of the Petitioner and alleged involvement of the guard, Ajay Singh. She further contended that the CCTV footage could confirm his claim, but the Bank officials ignored his requests for assistance.
7. She further argued that there is a concurrent finding in this matter and the role of the National Commission in revision is very limited.  She cited three Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support her arguments:-

1. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022.

2. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011.

3. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022.

8. The Bank statement shows that a total of Rs.77,000/- was withdrawn in multiple transactions on the same night i.e. 28.04.2015, with amounts of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, and Rs.7,000/- being withdrawn at different intervals between 19:16:26 Hrs and 00:05:26 Hrs. All these withdrawals were made from various ATM machines across the city, including machines belonging to different banks. It is the case of the Complainant that he had informed the guard of the ATM, Ajay Singh that his card was stuck/ blocked inside the machine but he was informed that he should come on Monday to get the Card back.
9. Without going into the merits of the case and without ascribing any deficiency of service on the part of the Bank, in the peculiarities of the case considering that a paltry amount is involved, it would be seen from the aforesaid facts that it is for these paltry amounts that the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. In this regard, I would like to rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 781, decided on 04.09.2012, wherein it had been observed as under:-

“On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, the courts’ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.”

10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and Others vs. Atma Singh Grewal, (2014)13 SCC 666, decided on 17.09.2013, wherein it was observed as under:-

“It is not the first time that the Court had to express its anguish. We would like to observe that the mind-set of the Government agencies/ undertakings in filing unnecessarily appeals was taken note of by the Law Commission of India way back in 1973, in its 54th report. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid report of the Law Commission as well as National Litigation Policy for the States which was evolved at an All India Law Ministers Conference in the year 1972, this Court had to emphasize that there should not be unnecessary litigation or appeals. It was so done in the case of Mundrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar; 1979 (4) SCC 701.”

11. In the present Revision Petition, the amount in question is very paltry i.e. Rs.38,500/- and I am of the considered opinion that filing a petition for trivial amount should be avoided, as it subjects the poor litigant to unnecessary hardship and also adds pressure on this Commission in terms of number of litigation.

12. In view of the above discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the Orders of the State Commission and District Forum are upheld.