STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GAURAV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the State Bank of India, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 21.02.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 83 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 19.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 265, dated 20.09.2012, and, has, thus, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

(2.) In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, a Lecturer in the Education Department of the State of Punjab, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not conducting proper inhouse enquiry into the incident of withdrawal of a total sum of Rs. 77,000/- from his savings bank account by use of the ATM Debit Card, issued by the Petitioner to him, seven times at three different ATM machines, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to reimburse to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 77,000/-, debited to his account, along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.

(3.) The short ground, on which the correctness and legality of the orders passed by the Fora below is questioned by Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that the said orders are vitiated because the same are based on factual infirmities. It is asserted by Learned Counsel that the observation by the Fora below to the effect that ATM machines used were installed at a distance of 316 Kms. from each other, and, therefore, it was humanly impossible for any fraudster to use the ATM card at two different places, namely, Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh and Jhansi in Madhya Pradesh, is factually incorrect, inasmuch as all the machines in question were installed in the same vicinity around Jhansi Railway Station, Lucknow Circle, Uttar Pradesh. In support of the submission, Learned Counsel has referred us to certain documents, including the letters exchanged between the Petitioner and the other two Banks, who had provided the facility of use of the ATM machines to Petitioner Bank's card holders.