STATE BANK OF PATIALA VASANT KUNJ ROAD, MAHIPALPUR, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,SHRI R. MURLI. NEW DLEHI Vs. HARI GOBIND SINGH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the State Bank of Patiala, Opposite Party No.2 (for short "the Bank") in the Complaint, against the order, dated 08.04.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 445 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the view taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, New Delhi (for short "the District Forum") to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not ensuring that the ATM machines installed by it function satisfactorily and properly, due to which the Respondent No.1/Complainant suffered a financial loss of Rs. 25,000/-, and consequently dismissed the Appeal.

(2.) The Appeal had been preferred by the Bank against the order, dated 28.03.2012, passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. DF.VII/100/2010/5252. By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, had directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.10.2009 till realization.

(3.) Being unsuccessful before the State Commission, in the afore-noted Appeal, the Bank is before me in the present Revision Petition.