SUNIL DUFARE Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 28/9/2016 in First Appeal No. 206 of 2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (in short, the 'State Commission') dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dtd. 13/11/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (in short, the "District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 504 of 2012.

(2.) The petitioner had a savings bank (SB) account with respondent no. 2 and an ATM card linked to this account. On 7/10/2010 morning he checked the available balance to be Rs.53,413.00 but could not draw Rs.20,000.00 a few minutes later. However, the person next in line was able to draw money on his ATM card. Later that day he attempted to draw Rs.1,000.00 and found that Rs.20,000.00 had been deducted from his SB account. The updation of the passbook on 11/10/2010 confirmed that the amount of Rs.20,000.00 had been debited from the SB account. As both respondents denied their liability, he approached the District Forum which allowed the complaint on contest and ordered payment of Rs.20,000.00 with interest from 7/10/2010 till payment, Rs.100.00 per day to complainant as per RBI Circular dtd. 17/7/2009 and litigation cost of Rs.1,000.00. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 filed appeals before the State Commission seeking enhancement of rate of interest and dismissal of the complaint respectively. The State Commission disposed the same by a common order in FA No. 206 of 2014 filed by the Bank/respondent no. 2. The State Commission concluded that there was no defect in the ATM machine used and the use of two different machines by the petitioner threw a cloud of suspicion on the complainant/petitioner's conduct. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was set aside. This revision petition assails this order of the State Commission on the ground that the respondents could not establish that the ATM actually dispensed Rs.20,000.00 to the petitioner and the fact was reported to the respondents the same day followed by a written complaint on 12/10/2010 and hence the rule of the respondent for ATM related problems does not apply. The issue was also not resolved by 31/3/2011 as assured by the respondents. On 29/10/2010 the amount of Rs.20,000.00 was remitted to his SB account by respondent 2; however, in March 2011 this amount was asked to be returned before the account could be closed as desired by the petitioner. On 30/8/2012 respondent 1 informed him on being contacted that ATM related issues were entertained only up till 6 months.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully.