G.M. SATYAPRIYA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.08.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2010/827 G.M. Satyapriya vs. Bank of India by which while dismissing appeal and confirming order of District Forum imposed Rs.5,000/- as cost.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner withdrew Rs.41,000/- from OP/Respondent Bank on 24.1.2009 from her saving bank account. The amount withdrawn included 82 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination. Soon after withdrawal, Rs.17,000/- were robbed by three miscreants at the counter of the bank from the complainant and she reported incident to Hall In charge and the Branch Manager and also lodged FIR. As she was robbed in bank premises, it was alleged that bank was responsible for its negligence and filed complaint. OP/respondent contested claim and submitted that some third person in the Hall pointed out to the complainant that one of the notes in her hand was fake and in that process first took the note from the complainant's hand and then handed back the currency notes to her and left bank hall. Complainant did not raise any alarm about this incident and she was also shown CCTV recording from which it appeared that the main miscreant was accompanied by two persons. Complainant identified the miscreant who had taken currency notes from her. OP further submitted that there were 8 CCTV cameras installed in the banking hall covering all important functions and there was also a security guard present on the main gate at the time of occurrence and denied negligence on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground that police investigation was still pending and matter requires evidence as witnesses have to be examined and complainant was advised to approach appropriate Court of law. Against this order, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by impugned order, hence, revision petition was filed.

(3.) Hard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.