The case delves into the intricate legal analysis surrounding court jurisdiction in consumer protection cases. It sheds light on the significance of concrete evidence in determining liability and upholding consumer rights. The court’s examination of jurisdictional limitations sets a precedent for future cases in the realm of consumer protection. Follow the journey of navigating legal intricacies in safeguarding consumer interests.
Facts
- Appellant went to deposit Rs. 500 in his account but was informed of an account number change by the bank staff.
- Bank staff wrote the new account number, 32432609504, in the appellant’s passbook.
- Appellant deposited Rs. 3,00,000 on 16.01.2013 using a cheque from Prabir Pradhan.
- Bank informed appellant later that the account number given to him belonged to another customer, Sunil Maity.
- Sunil Maity withdrew Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 on 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013 respectively from the account mistakenly given to the appellant.
- Appellant’s attempts to resolve the issue with the bank through letters were unsuccessful.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Appellant filed a consumer case before the Consumer Forum against the respondent-bank.
- Appellant alleged that he had a saving account with the respondent since January, 2000.
- The National Commission allowed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant on 14 June, 2019.
- Learned counsel for the State Bank of India stated they will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought in a civil court.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The State Commission modified the order by striking off the fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem.
- The National Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is limited.
- The National Commission called for a report from the bank during the revision which was deemed unwarranted.
- The report absolving the bank of liability was based on conjectures and lacked concrete evidence.
- The National Commission set aside the findings of lower forums based on the bank’s report without thorough analysis.
- The requirement of detailed evidence should not be a reason to deny access to consumer protection forums.
- The Respondent No 2 did not provide any counter evidence regarding the deposited amount.
- The National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by solely relying on the bank’s report.
- The National Commission’s determination of entertainability of a complaint is based on whether the questions involved can be resolved through summary enquiry.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suits in the Civil Court.
- The National Commission’s order that the appellant can seek remedy in the Civil Court and utilize Section 5 of the Limitation Act is erroneous.
- The impugned order was solely based on a report from the respondent-bank and is therefore set aside.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- State Commission order restored
- Appeal allowed
Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR MAITY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA (2022 INSC 84)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000432-000432 / 2022
