KUMARI LAMA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER ICICI BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 21.07.2014, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short 'the State Commission') in the case FA/81/2013, "The General Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Ms. Kumari Lama", vide which, the appeal filed against the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling in Consumer Complaint No. 20/D/12 was allowed and the said order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint, was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner are that an ATM Debit card (International) was issued to her by the respondent Bank in April 2009, which she had been using till 18.08.2011, when the said card got deactivated. On her request, the Bank issued her a new ATM Card, but the same was not activated. However, the complainant learnt that a third debit card had been issued by the Bank and from the statement of account, it was revealed that a sum of 11,33,914/- had been fraudulently withdrawn from her savings account. The complainant, alleging gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank, filed the consumer complaint in question with the following prayer:-

(3.) The said complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide their order dated 09.10.2012 and the Bank was directed to refund a sum of 11,33,914/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. with effect from 08.09.2011 till realisation and further directed to pay a compensation of 50,000/- and litigation cost of 8,000/-. However, in appeal filed before the State Commission against this order, the order passed by the District Forum was set aside on the ground that the District Forum did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the issue because as per section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the total amount demanded by the complainant including the compensation exceeded 20 lakh. The State Commission directed vide this order that the complainant was at liberty to file complaint before the appropriate forum on the same cause of action. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.