ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 823 OF 2022
(Against the order dated 22-06-2022 in Complaint Case No.317/2014 of the District Consumer Commission-II, Lucknow)
- State Bank of India
LHO Hazarat Ganj
Lucknow
Through Chief General Manager
- Deputy General Manager
State Bank of India
ATM Operation Belapur
Maharastra
...Appellants
Vs.
- Shri Kaushik Chatterji
S/o Late Justice Sri Pranav Kumar Chatterji
R/o C-3/149 Vikrant Khand
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
- Shri Gautam Chatterji
S/o Late Justice Sri Pranav Kumar Chatterji
R/o C-3/149 Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar
Lucknow
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Sri Sharad Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, Advocate.
Dated : 20-12-2023
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
This is an appeal under Section-41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the judgment and order dated 22-06-2022 passed by the District Consumer Commission-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.317/2014 by which the learned District
:2:
Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties/appellants jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.6,18,848/- to the complainant within 30 days and interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the aforesaid amount from
the date of presentation of the complaint till the date of payment shall also be paid to the complainant. In addition to that the opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the case to the complainant. If the compliance is not made within the stipulated period of 30 days, the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the aforesaid amounts.
The appeal has been filed with delay condonation application. Appellant has shown sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Cause shown for delay is explained, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission with the allegation that the complainant is having Saving Account in the State Bank of India, Ghazipur Branch, District Ghazipur. The ATM card has also been issued by the bank, having the withdrawal limit of Rs.20,000/- per day.
It has been alleged by the complainant in his complaint that between the period 24-06-2012 to 27-08-2012 fraudulent withdrawal, total amounting to Rs.6,38,848/- has been made from the account of the complainant through ATM. In such fraudulent withdrawal Rs.40,000/- has been allowed to be withdrawn through ATM. Due to negligence and conspiracy the employees of the bank, the money total amounting to Rs.6,38,848/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant.
The opposite party has contested the case before the learned District Consumer Commission and has filed the written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.
:3:
It has been stated by the opposite party in the written statement that the present complaint is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant is account holder/card holder of State Bank of India, Ghazipur Branch, District Ghazipur and as such jurisdiction for filing complaint lies with District Consumer Commission, Ghazipur but not at Lucknow. Further the complaint is also not maintainable before the District Consumer Commission as the allegations made in the complaint are of the criminal in nature and same requires a detailed trial.
The learned District Consumer Commission, after hearing the Counsel for both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by both the parties, has come to the conclusion that the opposite party has failed to produce any evidence from which it can be observed that how the transaction of over and above Rs.40,000/- has been made from the ACM ID of the complainant within 24 hours. The opposite party has also failed to provide CCTV footage of the transaction to the complainant. In addition to that the opposite party has also not produce any report of any enquiry made by the opposite party or action taken by the opposite party with regard to the complaint of the transaction in dispute lodged by the complainant. The learned District Consumer Commission has opined that there is no force in the argument of the opposite party and whatever the facts and evidence adduced by the complainant on record has got force in the argument of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.
Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
:4:
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned District Consumer Commission has decided the present complaint on the wrong assumption of the facts and the findings so recorded are perverse and is not sustainable in law. The
finding of the District Consumer Commission is misconceived and deserves to be set aside.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the appellant bank as against the respondent.
It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Consumer Commission without proper application of mind and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is perfectly correct and the learned District Consumer Commission has committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has further argued that the District Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint and cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the learned District Consumer Commission has applied its judicial mind to all the facts, circumstances and evidence and on judicious consideration of all the materials available on the record, passed the impugned judgment and order, which is perfectly legal and sustainable and allegations made by the appellant contrary to this
:5:
are baseless and fit to be rejected and the appeal filed by the appellant is fit to be dismissed with exemplary cost to the complainant.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and after going through the material and evidence available on record and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, who has taken all care in mentioning the issues in detail and in deciding the same, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and is correct, as such need no interference and as such is liable to be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the District Consumer Commission is confirmed.
Any amount deposited by appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to District Consumer Commission alongwith interest accrued for disposal in accordance with this law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
