STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner Bank"), challenging the Order dtd. 15/9/2022, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 83 of 2018. Whereby, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 and 23, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") and dismissed the First Appeal. However, reduced the penal interest awarded by the District Forum in case the Petitioner Bank fails to refund the amount within 60 days from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant/ Respondent No.1 herein is having a Saving Bank Account (Pension) No. 10679599109 with the Petitioner Bank. He had also obtained the ATM (Debit) Card (ATM Card No. 6220180681200046040) with SMS alert facility. On 22/9/2015, the Complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 at about 12.30 p.m. from the ATM of Punjab National Bank at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It is averred by the Complainant that after that transaction on 22/9/2015 he had not used his ATM Card for more than a month and had kept the ATM Card in SBI ATM Card Cover. On 5/11/2015, the Complainant came to know that a Cheuque issued by him in favour of BSES had been bounced due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the SBI helpline regarding status of his Account and he was informed that the amount has been transferred or withdrawn using ATM Card. On 6/11/2015, the Complainant's daughter on his behalf lodged a Complaint with the Police Authorities for fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Account of the Complainant.

(3.) It is alleged in the Complaint that the Complainant neither received any SMS nor any other communication regarding the frequent unusual heavy transactions/ withdrawals from the Petitioner Bank despite having been registered the mobile number with the Bank for SMS alert service for transactions, which is a chargeable service. It is further alleged that no message was received by him even after the amount fell below the Minimum Balance Limit. On 28/12/2015, the Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Petitioner Bank. As the grievances of the Complainant remained unaddressed, he approached the District Forum by filing a Complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not receiving any message or communication in respect of fraudulent transactions, claiming amount of ?6,88,456/- along with interest @ 24% per annum, ?1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.