Case nº Revision Petition No. 3161 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 28/09/2015 in Appeal No. 142/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 29, 2016 (case 1. Branch Manager, United Bank Of India and Anr. 2. United Bank Of India Vs 1. Young Bengal Society Ltd. and Ors. 2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Ms. Arti Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Advocate and Ms. Upma Shrivastava, Advocate and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate |
| President | Mr. V.K. Jain,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | November 29, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
-
The complainant / respondent which is stated to be a partnership firm, though described wrongly as a Limited company in the complaint, had an account with the petitioner bank. On 12.4.2012, one Nirmalendu Das, Head Accountant of the complainant went to a Hatibagan Branch of the petitioner bank to deposit a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. He submitted the requisite pay-in-slip and serial No.44 was allotted to him. He stood in the queue in front of the cash counter waiting for his turn to deposit the said amount. When his turn matured, someone, playing a trick upon him, told him that a few currency notes had fallen from his pocket. When he was searching the aforesaid notes, the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was allegedly stolen form the window of the cash counter. A complaint was lodged at the concerned police station but the said amount could not be recovered. Alleging that the loss had happened due to inadequate security provided by the bank, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the bank as well as the insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
-
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank on several grounds, including that the account of the complainant being a cash credit account, it was not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits it was alleged that the theft had not taken from the cash counter of the bank and therefore, it was not responsible for the loss suffered by the complainant.
-
The District Forum vide its order dated 24.12.2013, allowed the complaint and directed the bank to pay an amount of Rs.2,12,450/- to the complainant, along with interest. The bank was also directed to pay damages quantified at Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. The insurer was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,250/- to the complainant.
-
Being aggrieved form the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
-
The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the cash was stolen from the possession of the bank or from the possession of the representative of the complainant. Though the case of the complainant is that the theft was committed from the cash counter, the manner of the incident which took place in...
To continue reading
Request your trial