STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BIJENDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Sec. 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by State Bank of India against the Impugned Order dtd. 24/3/2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 143/2021 whereby the First Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dtd. 12/2/2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind, Haryana in Complaint Case No. 70 of 2019 filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2, was confirmed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that Respondents No. 1 and 2 had a land in village Siwana Mal, Safidon, Jind, Haryana and they had taken a loan of ?3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) from State Bank of Patiala in which they had a joint account. The State Bank of Patiala was later merged with the State Bank of India and is now known as the State Bank of India. The bank deducted ?2537/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Only) on 27/7/2016, for Kharif Crop (Paddy), and ?1674.75/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four and Seventy Five Paise Only) on 27/12/2016, for Rabi Crop (Wheat) under the 'Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana'. However, instead of sending this amount to the Insurance Company's Jind branch, the Bank mistakenly sent it to the Sonepat branch. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised their concern by submitting an application to the C.M. Window in Gohana, Sonepat, on 12/9/2017. Due to inundation, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 suffered a loss of ?29,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Only) in the paddy crop and ?40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only)in the wheat crop, as stated in the Survey Report. The Agriculture Department of Jind mistakenly listed the Respondents No. 1 and 2's name and village in a different manner due to the Petitioner Bank's error. This caused the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be ineligible for the compensation they were entitled to receive, leading to financial and emotional distress. Hence, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Commission.

(3.) The District Commission, vide its ex-parte Order dtd. 12/2/2021, allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to indemnify the loss caused to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 due to its fault. The District Commission directed the Petitioner to pay in equal shares to both Respondents No. 1 and 2, ?75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Only) along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Order, ?6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) on account of mental harassment and hardship, and also an amount of ?5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses within 45 days from the date of the Order, failing which the Petitioner was to be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default.