STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. KRISHAN KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 16/01/2012, passed by the State Commission Haryana in First Appeal No. 1965/2006, State Bank of Patiala vs. Krishna Kaul, by which while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant -Respondent is an account holder of Opposite Party -Petitioner. On 27.09.2005, complainant, after getting Rs. 25,000/ - from PNB, went to Opposite Party Bank for depositing amount in complainant 's account no. 1190012729. After completing deposit slip, complainant approached the cashier counter then suddenly some unknown person snatched the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - from the complainant 's hand and ran away. Bank security guard was watching the procession of Dera Sacha Sauda, which was passing through the road in front of the bank. As Opposite Party could not provide adequate security to the complainant, alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant never came in the Bank on 27.09.2005 to deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/ -. Snatching of money from complainant 's hand was also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the compliant and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 25,000/ - alongwith 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the Opposite Party was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order, against which this Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent does not fall within the purview of consumer and further submitted that security guard was for the security of bank and if anyone has snatched money from respondent 's hand, petitioner can not be held responsible and the State Commission has committed error in dismissing the appeal and the District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint, hence Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law, hence Revision Petition be dismissed.