AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Bank in the Complaint against the Order dated 29.12.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/641/2014 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has modified the Order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Alipore (for short “the District Forum”) in C.C. Case No.321/2013. The District Forum has directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to the Complainant for its deficiency in service which in Appeal the State Commission has reduced to ₹2,25,000/-.
Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Original Complainants Nos. 1 and 2) obtained a House Building Loan (A/c No.04775110000045) from the Petitioner Bank in December 2011 with terms and conditions of repayment of the same by debiting EMI of ₹13,371/- on 28th day of each month, from the joint Savings Bank Account No.404710110005224, Customer I.D. No.118851800, of the Respondents. In this process, the credit balance in the said Savings Bank Account of the Respondents stood ₹4,539/- on 28.1.2013, which reached to ₹27,439/- on 23.2.2013 after fresh deposit of ₹22,900/- by cash by the Respondents on 23.2.2013, wherefrom another EMI of ₹13,381/- (Instead of ₹13,371/-) was debited by the Petitioner on 28.2.2013, apparently leaving an opening credit balance of ₹14,058/- as on 1.3.2013.
Assuming such credit balance of ₹14,058/- in the said Savings Bank Account, the Respondents issued a cheque bearing No.3 dated 1.3.2013 in favour of National Insurance Co. Ltd. on account of Mediclaim Policy No. 102000/48/11/850000039803, but the said cheque was dishonoured by the Petitioner showing the reason of ‘insufficient fund’ in the Savings Bank Account of the Respondents as the Petitioner wrongly debited ₹11,540/- (₹4539/- on 30.1.2013, ₹162/- on 9.2.2013 and ₹6839/- on 25.2.2013) from the concerned Savings Bank Account without any intimation to the Respondents, as alleged in the Complaint. It is further averred that as a result of such dishonouring of the cheque by the Petitioner, the Insurance Company cancelled the said Mediclaim Policy by its letter dated 11.3.2013. Then the Respondents sent a legal notice dated 15.5.2013 and 13.6.2013 demanding due compensation for wrong deduction of loan amount and consequential loss of Mediclaim Policy of ₹2,00,000/-, to which the Petitioner never responded. Feeling aggrieved and alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, Respondents filed the Complaint before the District Forum.
Upon notice, the Petitioner entered appearance and filed its written version and contested the Complaint. It is pleaded that due to an electronic error on 23.03.2012, a sum of ₹13,002/- was wrongly credited to the loan account of the Respondents without correspondent debit to his Saving Account maintained with the Bank. It is contended that a sum of ₹1462/- was supposed to be credited on account of 1% interest subvention. Thereafter, the interest subvention account of the Bank was reconciled which showed a deficit balance and thus, the Bank came to now about the mistake on 29.01.2013 and accordingly the mistake was rectified by a debit of ₹11,540/- to the Complainants’ Saving Account. As there was no sufficient balance in the saving account of the Complainants, the System kept on knocking the saving account and mechanically debits ₹4,539/- on 30.01.13, ₹162/- on 09.02.2013 and ₹6,839/- on 25.02.2012 as and when funds were available. The Opposite Party No.2, National Insurance Company contested the complaint on the ground that the Complainant never approached to it for renewal of the policy.
District Forum, after giving due consideration to the evidence, material on record and submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that there was gross deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Bank Administration as they were operating their electronic system and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainants a sum of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation and ₹10,000/- as costs within one month from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 10% per annum shall be payable by the Petitioner to the Complainants for the entire period of default. Complaint was dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2 Bank. District Forum observed as under:-
“ Ld. Lawyer of both the parties have argued at length on their respective case. But the OP No.1 has practically admitted the case of the Complainant regarding wrong deduction and non payment of insurance premium. The OP No.1 much argued that there was error in system but the system has been generated by the Bank Administration. If there by any error bank is responsible for the same and not the innocent Customer. The Bank may argue that there was error in system but it is question of life and death to the customer. We may recall that shat is play to a person is dead to other.
From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that there was gross deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the bank administration. As such, the Complainant is entitled to get relief, compensation as prayed for.
Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, Petitioner Bank preferred Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while affirming the finding of facts returned by the District Forum to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, allowed the Appeal in part and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the amount of compensation was reduced from ₹5,00,000/- to ₹2,25,000/-along with litigation cost of ₹10,000/-. The State Commission observed as under:-
“ We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records including the BNA as filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1.
The letter dated 11.3.2013 issued by the Insurance Company to the Respondents/Complainants, as available on records (Running Page-23 of Memo of Appeal) demonstrates that the cheque related to the Mediclaim Policy in question was dishonoured for ‘insufficient fund’. The BNA as filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1, as available on records, exhibits the admission of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1 to the effect of commission of error, may be electronic, of omitting to debit to the Savings Bank Account concerned, which ultimately resulted in showing such credit balance with the Savings Bank Account of the Respondents/ Complainants as would be sufficient to meet the amount of the cheque in question as issued for the Mediclaim Policy, but the same could not be honoured for commission of error as admitted on the part of the Appellant/OP No. 1. Further, the letter dt. 11.3.2013 issued by the Insurance Company concerned to the Respondents/Complainants, as available on records (Running Page-22 of Memo of Appeal), clearly shows that the Mediclaim Policy in question stood ‘cancelled’ and the Insurance Company ‘are not on risk’ in respect of the concerned Mediclaim Policy bearing No. 102000/48/ 12/8500003903 as mentioned hereinbefore.
From the foregoing discussion and evidence on records it is crystal clear that the substance of the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/ Complainants weighs more than that of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1 and for such reason the decision referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No.1 is of no assistance to the Appellant/OP No.1.
Accordingly, we allow the instant Appeal in part and modify the impugned judgment and order to the following extent:
The Appellant/OP No. 1 is directed to pay to the Respondents/ Complainants Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakh twenty five thousand only) as compensation, which appears to be just and proper in view of the financial loss involved in the Mediclaim Policy of Rs. 2,00,000/- and of the extent of the mental agony resultant from uncertainty in affordability of medical treatment for loss of the said Mediclaim Policy, and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation, within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which a simple interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable by the Appellant/OP No. 1 to the Respondents/Complainants.
We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and also carefully perused the material available on record as well as evidence adduced by the parties.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Bank vehemently submitted that on 23.03.2012, there was an electronic error for which a sum of ₹13,002/- was credited to the Loan Account of the Complainants without corresponding debit to their Saving Bank Account. Since, the mistake was occurred due to electronic system, there was no scope of human discovery. On the other hand, since the Complainants were checking their Statement of Accounts regularly, they had suppressed the fact of the wrong entry. Had the Complainant brought this mistake to Bank’s Notice, there would have been no further complication. On finding out the mistake by the Bank, the mistake was rectified by a total debit of ₹11,540/- on different date as per availability of balance in the Saving Account. Complainant has wrongfully enjoyed the extra funds for 10 months but the Bank had not debited any charges for that in their account. It is further submitted that Complainant had failed to prove that there was any malafide intention of the Bank or the cheque was returned wrongfully. It is urged that as per Banking Practice, the Complainant was duty bound to report to the Bank about the excess credit of ₹13,002/- to his loan account.
Per Contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants supports the well-reasoned and detailed Order passed by the State Commission which is based on due appreciation of the facts of the case.
There is no dispute to the fact that the Complainants had obtained a House Building Loan from the Petitioner Bank in December, 2011 for which a monthly EMI for a sum of ₹13,371/- was to be debited in their Saving Account. On 28.01.2013, the Petitioner Bank debited a sum of ₹13,371/- in the Saving Account of the Complainants and the balance left in the account was ₹4,539/-. On 23.02.2013, the Complainants deposited a sum of ₹22,900/- in their Saving Bank and accordingly the balance stood in their said account was ₹27,4,39/- on the said date. On 28.02.2013, the Petitioner Bank debited a sum of ₹13,381/- from the Saving Account of the Complainants. Assuming bonafidely that there is a balance of ₹14,068/- in their Joint Saving Account, the Complainant issued a cheque in favour of the National Insurance Company Ltd. on account of Mediclaim Policy for ₹2,00,000/-. However, the said Cheque was dishonoured due to “insufficient funds” and accordingly, the Policy lapsed and cancelled by the Insurance Company. On enquiry from the Bank, the Complainant came to know that due to an electronic error a sum of ₹13,002/- was credited to their Loan Account on 23.03.012 without corresponding debit to their Saving Bank Account. The Bank on realizing the such technical error/mistake, debited a sum of ₹4539/- on 30.01.2013, ₹162/- on 09.02.2013 and ₹6839/- on 25.02.2013 (Total 11540/-) but intimation regarding debit of these entries was given to the Complainant by the Bank. Had the Complainants being informed about these entries in their Saving Bank Account, they would not have issued the cheque in favour of the Insurance Company. Hence, there is a clear cut negligence on the part of the Bank and the Bank is liable to indemnify the Complainants for the loss suffered by them due to cancellation of the Mediclaim Policy. There is a concurrent finding of facts rendered by the Fora below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in debiting the Saving Bank Account of the Complainants for a sum of ₹11,540/- without their information and knowledge. In case, the Bank had informed the Complainants about debit of such entries, the Complainant would not have issued the cheque to the Insurance Company. Since, the Mediclaim Policy was for a sum of ₹2,00,000/- we are of the view that the State Commission has rightly reduced the compensation from ₹5,00,000/- to ₹2,25,000/-.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Fora below had considered all the material evidence on record and there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our limited revisional jurisdiction under the Act.
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ - [Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 decided on 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
“ It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr – (Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 decided on 08.09.2022) has held as under:-
“ At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. (Emphasis supplied)
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-noted Judgements, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Impugned Order dated 29.12.2015 passed by the State Commission which is based on proper and correct appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the Parties. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.