SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') shall dispose of revision petition challenging order dtd. 5/8/2016 in appeal no. 403 of 2015 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') setting aside the order of the District Forum in complaint no.26 of 2013 dtd. 12/3/2015.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner held a debit card in respect of his current account with the respondent bank, obtained in the name of his firm Poonam Car Paridhan Enterprises. The debit card was used unauthorisedly according to the petitioner on 18/5/2011, 19/5/2011 and 23/5/2011 for amounts of Rs.24,675.00 Rs.24,000.00 and Rs.22,200.00 respectively. Learning of the debit of Rs.71,175.00 from his account on 23..05.2011, the petitioner immediately informed the respondent and demanded the transaction slips from the Bank and requested the bank to close his ATM Card. As the transactions slips were not provided, the petitioner approached the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank on 28/5/2011, whereafter two transaction slips were provided while the 3rd has not been provided to date. Petitioner informed the respondent that the transaction slips did not match his signature in Hindi on the card since the transaction slip bore a signature in English language. The petitioner, therefore, sought refund of the amount debited from his account on the grounds that the bank had been deficient in allowing the transactions. It was also stated by the petitioner that on 18/5/2011 he was physically in Jaipur and he had used the ATM Debit Card to withdraw cash when the card was in his safe custody. The petitioner alleges that the payments were made in violation of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the instructions of the RBI for which the bank was liable. He also lodged an FIR (no.312 of 2011) with Malviya Nagar Police Station, Jaipur. The petitioner contends that the Bank failed to secure his rights as a card holder and had not even initiated legal proceedings. Unauthorised purchase using his debit card was alleged to have been done through a duplicate or cloned card which was ascribed to the Bank and therefore constituted a deficiency in service. The petitioner served legal notice dtd. 6/6/2011 seeking refund of the money with interest within seven days, which was not acted upon. However, a sum of Rs.24,300.00 was credited to the account of the petitioner leaving a balance of Rs.46,875.00. The District Forum held that the respondent bank had not exercised the requisite caution and vigilance with respect to the use of the ATM card and was therefore, deficient in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed repayment of Rs.46,875.00 with interest @ 10% from the date of withdrawal to the date of payment along with Rs.7000.00 towards mental agony and litigation cost.