Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/330/2024

DR. JASPREET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP BHARDWAJ

20 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	330 of 2024
Date  of  Institution	:	14.08.2024
Date   of   Decision	:	20.11.2024

 

 

 

 

Dr.Jaspreet Kaur wife of Sh.Dupinder Puraba, Resident of House No.113, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

1.  State Bank of India, Branch: Lovely Professional University, Chaheru, Village Chaheru, District Phagwara, Punjab through its Head Manager/Authorized Representative/ Authorized Signatory.    

2. State Bank of India, Head Office :- State Bank Bhawan, M.C. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, through its Head Manager/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.

3.  State Bank of India, Circle Office:- Polycab, 17-B, Madhya Marg, Bank Square, 17-B, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017 through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,     MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by:    Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Chandeep Singh, Counsel for OPs.

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that she has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,34,887/- as OPs remain deficient in rendering service to her and they also indulged in Unfair Trade Practice. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is resident of Chandigarh and she is an officer with Lovely Professional University and maintaining a Saving Bank Account No.55139838243 CIF Number 75019945560 with OP No.1 for the last 15 years. Her salary is the source of her livelihood which is being credited in her account every month. On 30.01.2024, two unauthorized transactions were being done from her account and an amount of Rs.88,888/- and Rs.11,000/- were got debited without her consent and knowledge. The complainant did not receive any SMS or mail from the OPs regarding these transactions. The complainant come to know about these transactions when SBI Customer Care No.0402341700 at 10:18 AM called and asked about these transactions. The complainant was instructed to shut down the internet on her mobile number and also advised to reach out to nearest SBI Branch. The complainant’s account statement providing the debit amount is placed on record as Annexure C-1.

 

    The complainant immediately approached the OP No.1 to report the matter and met executive Priya Kumari, who refused to take any written complaint and told to register the complaint at Customer Care mentioned in the branch. The complainant called at 1800 111 109 and requested them to block ATM, Internet Banking and UPI Pin in her account. The complaint got registered vide complaint number 383033516 and 383034372.

 

    The complainant received message regarding shadow amount marked in her account for Rs.11,000/- against ticket number 383034372 and Rs.88,888/- against ticket number 383033516 on 01.02.2024. The complainant was asked to submit certain documents but staff of the OP No.1 was not aware about the required documents to be submitted. On 08.02.2024, the complainant visited the OP No.1 to check the status of her complaint and surprised to know that despite of her complaint, UPI was not disabled and there was again unauthorized transaction of Rs.34,999/- on 31.01.2024. The complainant informed about it to OP No.1 who were clueless about as to why the UPI was not disabled and the OP No.1 blocked the account on 08.02.2024 for stopping any further transaction. The complainant again made a complaint on Customer Care who informed that UPI was not blocked in earlier complaint upon which, the complainant requested to block UPI now but Customer Care told the UPI is not getting blocked and told to contact the home branch and submit S.O.P. The complainant was not aware about any S.O.P. and contacted OP No.3 who did not guide the complainant about any S.O.P. The complainant met Priya Kumari and Dharam Pal Bali but of no help. Thus, complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,34,877/- without providing any information, PIN, details of her account to anyone. The complaint made by her on 08.02.2024 with OP No.1 is placed on record as Annexure C-2 and emails exchanged between the parties as Colly C-3.

 

    The complainant further pleads that when a Consumer opens a bank account then it’s faith is that his or her money is secured with the bank and the bank also provides services and assures that they will not be deficient in rendering any services and keep the account of the customer safe and confidential. If any third party enters into the account of a Consumer by breaching the securities of the bank then the bank failed in maintaining proper security and as such remain deficient in rendering the proper services to the Consumer which has happen in the present complaint. The confidential information of the account is with the bank & the complainant and if the complainant has not shared any information with any third person and in possession of ATM when these transactions were made then the information must have been obtained from the Bank and the Bank indulge in Unfair Trade Practice by providing the information to any third person knowingly or unknowingly.

 

    Thus, the act and conduct of the OPs clearly proves the deficiency in service and indulgence in Unfair Trade Practice for which the complainant has not only suffered the financial loss but also mental agony and harassment at the hands of the OPs.

 

    Lastly, complainant prayed to allow the present complaint with a direction to OPs to :-

“Pay an amount of Rs.1,34,887/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 31.01.2024 till the date of actual refund alongwith compensation and litigation expenses”

 

2]       OPs in their written version, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per the Standing Operating Procedures of the Bank on Unauthorized Electronic Debit Transaction, some documents are required by the bank for processing the complaint of the complainant, such as, complainant was required to submit certain details which includes declaration-cum-complaint form alongwith all the necessary details including ticket number etc. Further, swiping of card on POS at Merchant Outlets are required to be declared, statements were also required to be made by the complainant with regard to certifying that the transactions have been done by her or not, complainant was also required to disclose if she had settled with any of the merchant establishment. In case of UPI transactions, various details are required by the bank such as the geographical location on the date of disputed transactions, receipt of SMS, possession of mobile, blocking of account, change of PIN, status of UPI Remote Screening App downloaded on the mobile, receiving of telephonic call before and after the transactions sharing of sensitive information, investment in any online game etc. It is stated that despite of sending e-mails/reminders as well as telephonic conversation held with complainant, she failed to submit the requisite documents to OP Bank to onward submission to appropriate authority. Thus, complainant herself did not act promptly and due to her negligence, the matter could not be forwarded to appropriate authority. Copy of the SOPs form is placed on record as Ex.OP-1/1. Copy of the e-mail dated 08.04.2024 is placed on record as Ex.OP-1/1A.

 

    It is stated that as per the SMS delivery report of the bank, SMS were sent to the complainant on 30.01.2024 at 09:53:58; 30.01.2024 at 09:54:37 and 31.01.2024 at 11:33:50, from perusal of which, it clearly reflects that transactions were credited in the account of some individual persons namely Dinesh and Rahul but the complainant has not disclosed whether the said persons are known to her or not. Copy of the SMS Delivery Report is placed on record as Ex.OP-1/2.

 

    It is stated that so far as suspending other services of the bank to avoid further loss to the complainant is concerned, all the UPI mandates given by complainant for an amount of Rs.2000/- which was being paid to her wallet and of Rs.160/- which was being paid to Google India Services were immediately cancelled and the Internet Banking as well as Debit Card was immediately suspended and SMS to this effect was also sent to the complainant. It is stated that on the basis of online complaint, fraud charge back was already raised by the OP Bank on the beneficiary bank.  

 

    It is further stated that at UPI platform, every transaction by using UPI PIN is purely confidential and known to the customer only and after verifying the OTP number sent on the registered mobile of the account holder, the transaction is complete. Hence, there is failure on the part of the complainant regarding safe keeping of his payment credentials.

 

    Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their written version.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

 

6]       The main issue involved in the present complaint is, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs while rendering banking service to the complainant or not?

 

7]       In order to find out answer to the above mentioned issue, the following facts and circumstances of the complaint are necessary to be discussed:-

 

8]       The complainant filed the present complaint against OPs for seeking relief for remaining deficient in providing service to the complainant and adoption of unfair trade practice. The OPs denied the allegation made against them in their written version, hence consumer dispute arose between the parties. The OPs in their preliminary objections took the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable because complainant is not Consumer of OPs and this Commission don’t have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint because complainant is maintaining her account at Jalandhar and cause of action, if any, arose at Jalandhar.

   

    With regard to first objection of OPs, it is observed that complainant has availed services of OPs for consideration and OPs have rendered the services to the complainant after receiving consideration, so, complainant is Consumer of OPs.

 

    Further, Defination provided in Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date) states:-

S.2(42)  “service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”                    

    Hence, it is clear that banking service is covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

    Moreover, reliance has been placed on the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as ‘Arun Bhatia vs. HDFC Bank & anr’. Civil Appeal No.5204-5205 of 2022 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person who avails any of the services of Bank is a Consumer under the defination of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now the Consumer Protection Act, 2019). Hence, it is held that complainant is Consumer of OPs.

 

    Further, OPs have taken a strong objection that this Commission don’t have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complainant is maintaining her account at Jalandhar Branch.

 

    This objection of OPs is also not sustainable in the eyes of law because complainant has duly proved on record by placing a copy of her Aadhar Card as Exb.C-55 & 55A (at page No.55 & 55A) wherein it is proved that she is permanent resident of Chandigarh. Moreover, complainant has clarified in her complaint that she is working as an officer at Lovely University, Jalandhar, for earning her livelihood, so, naturally she has place of residence over there also for the sake of her job but she is permanent resident of Chandigarh which is duly proved by placing on record copy of her Aadhar Card as Exb.C-55 & 55A (at page No.55 & 55A). 

 

    Section 34(2)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date) states:-

Section 34   Jurisdiction of District Commission,-

 

        (1)  xxxxx

        (2)  A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

        (a)  xxxxx 

        (b)  xxxxx

        (c)  xxxxx

        (d)  the complainant resides or personally works for gain

            

    Therefore, in view of Section 34(2)(d), it could safely be concluded that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and decide the same on merits.

    Moreover, it is observed that this Commission has not only territorial jurisdiction but also pecuniary jurisdiction as the paid up value in the present complaint is less than Rupees Fifty Lacs. Further, it is held that complaint is filed within prescribed period of limitation of two years because cause of action arose on 30.01.2024 when the unauthorized transactions were made from her bank account and present complaint is filed before this Commission on 14.08.2024 i.e. within prescribed period of limitation mentioned in Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

9]       It is observed that on 30.01.2024 i.e. the very first day of unauthorized transactions, when complainant came to know about the unauthorized transactions dated 30.01.2024 for an amount to of Rs.88,888/- and Rs.11,000/-, without her consent and knowledge through S.B.I. Customer Care, advising her to shut down the internet on her mobile number and reach out to nearest S.B.I. Branch then following those instructions, she immediately approached the OP No.1 to report the matter to Executive namely Priya Kumari, who refused to take any written complaint from the complainant and told her to register her complaint at Customer Care mentioned in her branch. The complainant got her complaint registered vide complaint No.383033516 and 383034372 dated 30.01.2024. To prove this fact, complainant has filed her self attested Declaration/Affidavit dated 05.08.2024.

 

    OP No.1 neither placed on record affidavit of the concerned Executive/Employee namely Priya Kumari nor placed on record C.C.T.V. footage dated 30.01.2024 i.e. relevant date to rebut the proof of the complainant to the effect that she reported the matter to Executive/Employee Priya Kumari and she refused to take written complaint from the complainant/consumer. Thus, it is duly proved on record vide Consumer’s Self Attested Declaration/Affidavit that complainant/consumer reported the matter of unauthorized transactions dated 30.01.2024 to OP No.1 on 30.01.2024 and its Executive/Employee namely Priya Kumari refused to take written complaint from its customer/consumer which amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice adopted by OPs.

 

    Further, third unauthorized transaction took place for an amount of Rs.34,999/- on 31.01.2024 from the bank account of the Consumer despite the fact that Consumer has already registered two complaints on 30.01.2024 vide complaint number 383033516 and 383034372 dated 30.01.2024 for an amount of Rs.88,888/- and Rs.11,000/-. As complainant came to know about third unauthorized transaction on 08.02.2024, hence she registered her complaint on that very same day with the OPs regarding the same. It is height of negligence on the part of OPs that they did not safeguard the Consumer’s account from further unauthorized transaction despite registered complaints on 30.01.2024 and Consumer has to bear further financial loss of Rs.34,999/- vide unauthorized transaction dated 31.01.2024 due to negligence of OPs to safeguard the Consumer’s account from third party unauthorized transaction. 

 

    Bank employees are duty bound to discharge their duties with responsibility and due diligence. It is desirable that the bank employees should provide proper information and guidance to its customers to file the proper written complaint about unauthorized transactions from their Bank account till the recovery of the same. As Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date) provides very ‘valuable right’ to its Consumer i.e. ‘Right to Information’, so, OPs are not only legally duty bound to provide all the required information to its customers for filing proper written complaint against unauthorized transactions from the bank account but also educate the Consumer in order to get reversed unauthorized transactions in their bank account. In the present complaint, OPs not only remained deficient in rendering proper service by refusing to accept written complaint from the Consumer but also negligent by not providing her copy of SOPs in order to enable her to fill the same and submit the same to concerned quarter. The OPs have placed on file the copy of SOPs form as Ex.OP-1/1 but failed to prove on record that OPs ever supplied/provided copy of SOPs form to the complainant to enable her to fill and file the same with OPs. Thus, non supply of copy of SOPs form to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service because it unabled the complainant to fill the same and submit to the OPs. OPs remained not only deficient in rendering service to the complainant but also remained negligent it resolving the issue of the complainant which makes them liable to compensate the Consumer for the same.

 

    Further, OPs told complainant to submit ‘certain documents’ but never informed, disclosed or provided those ‘certain documents’ to the Consumer to enable her to fill the same and submit the same. Moreover, it is observed that OPs did not show any interest in resolving the issue of the complainant rather instead of providing co-operation and support to the Consumer, OPs remained non co-operative and non-concerned in resolving the issue of the Consumer. Moreover, OPs assured the complainant vide e-mail dated Feb 9, 2024, placed on record at page No.19 of the complaint, that, “We would like to inform you that complaint will be resolved within 90 days from the date of complaint registered. We request you to kindly wait.” So, OPs gave false assurance to the complainant that her complaint will be resolved within 90 days and asked her to await. Thus, OPs not only admitted unauthorized transaction from the bank account of the Consumer but also gave her assurance that it will be resolved within 90 days and asked her to wait but despite expiry of those 90 days the complaint was not resolved by OPs.

    Further, complainant/consumer has pleaded that she did not receive any message or e-mail regarding those unauthorized transactions. The OPs placed on record Ex.OP-1/2 at page No.29 of written version wherein two messages dated 30.01.2024 (11:34:21) and (13:20:21) showed ‘failed’ in delivery status report. Hence, the OPs neither in their written version nor affidavit declares that two messages failed to be delivered to the complainant wherein in their verification it is written that nothing material has been concealed therein, hence, it amounts to filing of false affidavit.          

 

10]      Further, OPs have alleged that the complainant has not disclosed whether Dinesh and Rahul are known to her or not. When the complainant has clearly informed to the OPs on the very same day unauthorized transactions took place that those transactions were not made by her then the question whether Dinesh and Rahul are known to her or not is not material. The material factor is that Consumer has informed the OPs on very same day of unauthorized transaction i.e. 30.01.2024 that she has not made those transactions, hence those transactions are unauthorized transactions. The OPs (Bank) should have acted promptly and should have reversed those entries in the account of the complainant on the account that she has mentioned that those transactions are unauthorized transactions. Delay in action on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part as it caused financial loss to the Consumer.

Further, vide circular letter No.RBI/2017-18/15 DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017 addressed to All Scheduled Commercial Banks (including RRBs) & All Small Finance Banks and Payments Banks, Reserve Bank of India while dealing with the issue on ‘Consumer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions’ directed as under:-

 

2.   “With the increased thrust on financial inclusion and customer protection and considering the recent surge in customer grievances relating to unauthorised transactions resulting in debits to their accounts/ cards, the criteria for determining the customer liability in these circumstances have been reviewed. The revised directions in this regard are set out below”

 

Reporting of unauthorized transactions by customers to banks  

 

5.   “Banks must ask their customers to mandatorily register for SMS alerts and wherever available register for e-mail alerts, for electronic banking transactions. The SMS alerts shall mandatorily be sent to the customers, while email alerts may be sent, wherever registered. The customers must be advised to notify their bank of any unauthorised electronic banking transaction at the earliest after the occurrence of such transaction, and informed that the longer the time taken to notify the bank, the higher will be the risk of loss to the bank/ customer. To facilitate this, banks must provide customers with 24x7 access through multiple channels (at a minimum, via website, phone banking, SMS, e-mail, IVR, a dedicated toll-free helpline, reporting to home branch, etc.) for reporting unauthorised transactions that have taken place and/ or loss or theft of payment instrument such as card, etc. Banks shall also enable customers to instantly respond by "Reply" to the SMS and e-mail alerts and the customers should not be required to search for a web page or an e-mail address to notify the objection, if any. Further, a direct link for lodging the complaints, with specific option to report unauthorised electronic transactions shall be provided by banks on home page of their website. The loss/ fraud reporting system shall also ensure that immediate response (including auto response) is sent to the customers acknowledging the complaint along with the registered complaint number. The communication systems used by banks to send alerts and receive their responses thereto must record the time and date of delivery of the message and receipt of customer’s response, if any, to them. This shall be important in determining the extent of a customer’s liability. The banks may not offer facility of electronic transactions, other than ATM cash withdrawals, to customers who do not provide mobile numbers to the bank. On receipt of report of an unauthorised transaction from the customer, banks must take immediate steps to prevent further unauthorised transactions in the account”

 

Limited Liability of a Customer

1. Zero Liability of a Customer

 

6.       “A customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:

          (i) Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).

 

(ii) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction.”

 

Burden of Proof 

 

12.     “The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank”

 

    In the present complaint, OPs failed to discharge their burden of proof by leading even an iota of evidence proving customer liability of unauthorized transactions. OPs miserably failed to discharge burden of proof mentioned in para No.12 of RBI Circular No.RBI/2017-18/15DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017 by providing on record that it is an authorized transaction. Hence, it is held to be an unauthorized transaction by third party.

    Further, in the present complaint, it is held that OPs did not follow instructions of aforesaid circular dated 06.07.2017 issued by RBI. Moreover, OPs have violated the instructions of the above mentioned circular issued by RBI.

    Moreover, Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice Girish Kulkarni and Hon’ble Firdosh Pooniwalla in a petition filed by one Jaiprakash Kulkarni and Pharma Search Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. relying on 2017 RBI Circular held “A Customer has zero liability when the unauthorized transaction occurs due to a third party breach where the deficiency lies not with bank or customer but somewhere in the system”, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed Bank of Baroda to refund Rs.76 Lakh debited from a Company’s Bank account fraudulently.

 

11]      Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh titled as ‘State Bank of India & anr. Vs. Rajesh Garg’ Appeal No.208 of 2024 Decided on 30.09.2024, arisen out of order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.252 of 2023 titled ‘Rajesh Garg vs. State Bank of India & anr.’, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced as under:-

“Moreover, the appellants failed to make compliance of the directions of the Circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 06.07.2017, Annexure C-5, issued to all the Commercial Banks which clearly stipulated that the customer is required to report the unauthorized transaction to the Bank, which had been done in the case of the respondent. There was no delay on the part of the respondent in bring into notice of the appellants with regard to the four unauthorized transactions from his account as he intimated the same to the appellants the same day.

   

Thus, in light of the submissions and documentary evidence placed before the Ld. District Commission, the respondent’s contention regarding the reversal of disputed transactions finds merit. The respondent, relying on Annexure C/5, is very much entitled to the reversal of the transactions in question, as these instructions unequivocally state that when an account holder disputes transactions within minutes of receiving automated alerts from the Bank, such transactions must be reversed. The rationale behind this instruction is to protect the consumer during the reversible window period, affording them the opportunity to contest any unauthorized or erroneous transactions. The failure to adhere to this procedure renders the very purpose of sending automated messages, with an option for the consumer to dispute a transaction, ineffective and meaningless. 

 

It was the appellants’ burden to establish any instance of OTP or PIN misuse; however, they failed to provide any documentary evidence or logs showing that OTPs were sent to the respondent for the disputed transactions. This omission has weakened their assertion that the respondent shared sensitive banking information with an unauthorized third party.

 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued clear instructions aimed at enhancing consumer confidence in online banking transactions. These guidelines emphasize the necessity for banks to implement safety measures that allow account holders to promptly dispute unauthorized transactions. Thus, the appellants are obligated to reverse fraudulent transactions within the prescribed period when they occur within the scope of such safety measures. It is erroneous for the appellants to argue that fraudulent withdrawals do not give rise to liability on the part of the bank unless there is a proven failure of the banking system. The instructions of the RBI, which have been adopted to protect consumers from unauthorized transactions, place the responsibility on the bank to act promptly and reverse the transactions in cases where a dispute is raised within the appropriate window of time. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the Bank’s failure to reverse the disputed transactions constituted a deficiency in service. The respondent acted promptly in disputing the transactions and complied with the requisite procedure for contesting unauthorized withdrawals. The appellants, on the other hand, failed to substantiate their claims or provide sufficient evidence that the transactions were authorized or that the respondent was responsible for disclosing any sensitive banking information. The failure to reverse the transactions despite timely dispute by the respondent amounted to violation of both the principles of fair banking practice and the regulatory guidelines set forth by the RBI. 

 

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission, which is legal, just and fair”

 

12]      In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is held that OPs not only remained deficient in providing service to its Consumer in resolving the issue of unauthorized transactions dated 30.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 despite registered complaints dated 30.01.2024 made to the OPs but also remained negligent on account of their non co-operation in the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,34,887/- of unauthorized transactions which makes OPs liable not only to refund an amount of Rs.1,34,887/- but also pay compensation to the complainant on account of physical harassment and mental agony suffered by her despite bearing cost of litigation expenses. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,34,887/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 01.02.2024 till the date of its actual realization alongwith lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

13]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

 

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per Rules under The Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20.11.2024                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)

MEMBER

as