Karnataka High Court
Narlajarla Srikrishna vs State Bank Of India on 2 June, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
WP No. 5585 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.5585 OF 2025 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
NARLAJARLA SRIKRISHNA
BHAGAVANULU
S/O LATE N. SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
FLAT NO.002, PRIMROSE VILLA
APARTMENTS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
MADHUSHREE
H 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
Location: High CHANDRA LAYOUT BRANCH,
Court of
Karnataka NO.1235, 8TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA
STATE BANK BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR,
MADAME CAMA ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 021
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
WP No. 5585 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 29.12.2023 PASSED IN C.C.NO.260/2016 ON
THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25/11/2024 PASSED IN F.A.NO.293/2024 ON THE FILE OF
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
COMPLAINT AS PRAYED FOR AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER/ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M. NADAF )
Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing,
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it
is taken up for final disposal.
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
2. This petition is directed against the order dated
29.12.2023, passed in C.C. No.260/2016, on the file of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore (Principal Bench), vide Annexure-B
('KSCDRC' for short) and the order dated 25.11.2024
passed in F.A.No.293/2024 on the file of National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
('NCDRC' for short), vide Annexure-A, came to be
dismissed.
3. Sans details a brief outline of the facts leading
to filing of this petition, is as follows:
The petitioner filed a complaint before KSCDRC
against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State Bank of India
alleging that the Bank has committed deficiency of service
within the meaning of Section-2(g) of Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 ('Act of 1986' for short). The case of the
petitioner / complainant before the KSCDRC is that he had
opened a NRIE account bearing No.30019524023, on
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
10.10.2005 and had executed a GPA in favour of his
wife/Smt.Narlajarla Sarojini Rathnam on 21.10.2005,
authorising her to represent before Financial Institutions,
however his wife by virtue of GPA, had effected various
transactions with respondent bank during the period from
18.05.2006 to 26.03.2011.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he
had cancelled the GPA, however, the respondents - Bank
allowed the wife of the petitioner to effect various
transactions on the basis of cancelled GPA, where the
respondents-Bank committed deficiency of service
resulting in mental harassment and cruelty, which the
petitioner has quantified at Rs.18,41,797/- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and
Ninety Seven Only). He had also alleged that the
respondents-Bank had failed to exercise due diligence in
dealing with his monies in the bank.
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
5. The respondents-Bank upon service of notice
appeared through counsel and filed the statement of
objections, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner
by contending that the petitioner had given a mandate to
his wife by way of executing a GPA dated 21.10.2005,
authorizing her to represent him before the Financial
Institutions. He had also authorized his wife to operate the
account held by the him in the Bank and the respondents-
Bank had acted under the GPA and not otherwise. It is
further stated by the respondents-Bank that, there was
some marital disputes between the petitioner and his wife,
which he is trying to encash through the Bank. The
respondents-Bank specifically contended that the
petitioner had approached the respondents-bank and had
withdrew FD bearing No.30346538420 on 05.02.2009. The
wife of the petitioner by name, Mrs.Sarojini Rathnam, who
had operated the account throughout, was not been made
party to the proceedings as such, the complaint suffers
from non-joinder of necessary party. The value of the
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
claim made by the complainant does not exceed Rs.20
lakhs and the complaint is not maintainable for want of
pecuniary jurisdiction. Also stated that the alleged
deficiency in service on the part of Respondents-Bank
happened on 19.03.2007, 01.04.2007, 31.01.2011,
07.12.2010, 06.01.2011, 12.01.2012 and the complaint
was filed on 11.11.2016 which is barred by limitation,
even the petitioner had not filed application under Section-
24A of the Act of 1986 seeking condonation of delay to
entertain his complaint. The respondents-Bank had
categorically denied contents of the complaint and
submitted that they have not rendered any deficiency in
service as alleged by the petitioner.
6. The KSCDRC upon completion of the pleadings
framed four points for consideration, which we reproduce
as under:
i) "Does complaint is bad for non-joinder of
Smt.Sarojini Rathnam as contended by OPs?
ii) Does complaint is filed within time limitation ?
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
iii) Does Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction
to entertain this complaint ?
iv) Does Complainant proves the alleged
deficiency in service on the part of OPs.1 & 2?
If so, does he entitle for the relief sought
for?"
7. The KSCDRC answered the points against the
petitioner holding that, the wife of the petitioner was not
made as a party to the dispute; as such, the complaint is
bad for non-joinder of necessary party. So also, the
complaint filed on 11.11.2016 for the alleged deficiency in
service happened on 19.03.2007, 01.04.2007,
31.01.2011, 07.12.2010, 06.11.2011 and 12.01.2012 is
hopelessly barred under Section-24A, Sub-section-(1) of
Act of 1986 and also for not filing any application seeking
condonation of delay under Section-24A(2) of Act of 1986.
The reasons stated in the order passed by KSCDRC are in
paragraph Nos.5 to 10 produced at Annexure-B to the
petition. However, the KSCDRC reserved the liberty to the
petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, as the
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
enquiry before the Commission is summary in nature and
the redress alleged by the petitioner cannot be gone into.
8. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by
KSCDRC filed an appeal before the NCDRC under Section-
19 of Act of 1986. The NCDRC dismissed the appeal
stating its reasons in paragraph Nos.5 to 8, produced at
Annexure-A, reserving liberty to the petitioner approach
appropriate forum to seek the relief in respect of his
grievances against the respondents-bank, with the benefit
of Section-14 of the Limitation Act 1963, for the time
spent in prosecuting the present litigation.
9. It is this order which is challenged in the
present writ petition.
10. We have heard Sri.Manjunath B.R., learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ
petition papers.
11. Sri.Manjunath, reiterating the contentions in the
complaint before the KSCDRC and in the appeal before the
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
NCDRC submitted that both the State as well as the
NCDRC committed serious error in dismissing his
complaint and the appeal, without properly appreciating
the stand taken before them and the materials placed on
record. As such, the orders passed by the KSCDRC as well
as the NCDRC suffer from perversity.
12. He further submitted that the respondents-Bank
have floated the instructions required by the petitioner by
allowing his wife to operate the account on a GPA, which
was not in accordance with the format required to be
submitted before the bank. He also stated that the
KSCDRC has failed to consider that the petitioner was an
NRI and returned to India on 03.07.2014 and thereafter
he secured all the records and filed the complaint in the
year 2016, as such, there is no delay in filing the
complaint, however, the KSCDRC fell in error by holding
that the complaint is barred under Section-24A(1) and (2)
of Act of 1986.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
13. It is seen from the record that there are marital
disputes between the petitioner and his wife, resulting in
filing criminal case against the wife by the petitioner
before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in
C.C.No.23580/2016, by way of a private complaint for the
offences punishable under Sections-406, 420 and 120-B of
IPC, which came to be settled in Lokadalat on 01.02.2019.
It is also on record that subsequent to the execution of the
GPA, the wife of the petitioner operated the account for
more than five years, which the petitioner has not
objected. It is also on record that he was supplied with the
statement of accounts. However, he has not taken any
actions till filing of the complaint in the year 2016, for the
best reasons known to him. The withdrawal of the case by
the petitioner against his wife for the criminal offences
itself clearly shows that there is no deficiency of service on
the part of the respondents-bank within the meaning of
Section-2(g) of the Act of 1986. On the other hand, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
same amounts to acquiesce on the part of the petitioner
and an incongruent stand by the petitioner.
14. It is also seen from the record that the
petitioner had opened another account on 25.09.2010
nominating his wife, this is the precise reason for the
KSCDRC to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had
knowledge of the alleged transactions effected by his wife
from the date of GPA and as such, the petitioner cannot
raise a contention that he had no information. The said
observations are found in paragraph no.5 of the order
passed by the KSCDRC, at Annexure-'B'.
15. The KSCDRC at paragraph No.9 relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THE
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CITY UNION
BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS.
R.CHANDRAMOHAN1, cited by the respondent - Bank,
which we reproduce as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
"On the contrary, learned counsel for OP placed
reliance the case between The Chairman &
Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd., & Anr.
vs. R.Chandramohan decided Hon'ble Apex Court
in Civil Appeal No.7289/2009, wherein held at
para 2..... "During the end of 1996, there was
misunderstanding between the respondent and
one R.Kularaireman and, therefore, he had
written a letter to the appellant no.2 on
08.01.1997 requesting it not to allow withdrawals
from the said current account. It was further case
of the respondent that one Ravindra, an NRI
residing at Malaysia had purchased three flats in
the respondent's projects and had informed the
complainant that he had sent two drafts i.e., draft
bearing No.166570 dated 28.06.1996 For Rs.5
lakhs and draft bearing no. 177923 dated
18.11.1996 for Rs.3 lakhs totally amounting to
Rs. 8 lakhs. On the reconciliation of the accounts,
it was found that the said two demand drafts
were not credited in the said current account of
the company opened with the appellant no.2
bank. Despite the information sought by the
respondent complainant, the appellant no.2 did
not furnish any information. Subsequently, the
respondent came to know through Indian
Overseas Bank that the said demand drafts were
presented through the second appellant bank for
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
clearing and the same were paid to the City Union
Bank, Ram Nagar Branch. The respondent
therefore once again requested the appellant no.2
on 03.08.1998 informing it that the amount of the
said two drafts were credited in some other
accounts and therefore the same be re-credited in
his current account. In para 12 held "The
proceedings before the Commission being
summary in nature, the complaints involving
highly disputed questions of facts or the cases
involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or
cheating, could not be decided by the
Forum/Commission under the said Act. The
"deficiency in service", as well settled, has to be
distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious
acts. There could not be any presumption with
regard to the wilful fault, imperfection,
shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature
and manner of performance in service,
contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The
burden of proving the deficiency in service would
always be upon the person alleging it." Thus, this
proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is
rightly bearing on the facts in dispute between
the Complainant and his wife and in fact is not
party to this complaint, but facts remain found
from enquiry, a private complaint is filed before
Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
CC/23580/2016 against his wife which is disposed
as settled in Lok-Adalath on 01.02.2019, wherein
he alleged against his wife had committed
offences punishable U/Ss.406, 420, 120-B of the
IPC, yet had chosen to raise consumer complaint
against OPs.1 & 2 on 11.11.2016 for the
transactions alleged to have happened during
2007, 2010, 2011 & 2012 contending that GPA
executed on 21.10.2005 was cancelled by him,
but facts remain found from enquiry had some
grudge against his wife which to express it had
chosen to file this complaint against OPs bank."
16. The NCDRC in paragraph No.7 of its order
observed that the procedures applicable before the
Commission are not appropriate to redress the grievance
of the petitioner against the respondents-bank with
respect to his spouse, and proceeded to dismiss the
appeal, which reads as under:
"7. After hearing the learned counsels for both the
parties and on due consideration the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, it is undisputed
that the complainant/ appellant has issued a GPA
in favour of his wife to operate his said account in
the OP bank. It is also an admitted position that
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
subsequently there were some marital disputes
between the complainant and his wife, and he
initiated legal proceedings against her which
included certain criminal cases which were settled
in Lok Adalat on 01.12.2019. Under these
circumstances, in our view, summary procedures
applicable before this Commission are not
appropriate to redress his grievances against the
OP Bank with respect to his spouse. Therefore, we
are of the considered view that the Order passed
by the learned State Commission dated
29.12.2023 is just and proper and does not
require any interference. Therefore, the F.A. No.
293 of 2024 is dismissed."
17. As could be seen from the orders passed by the
KSCDRC, as well as the NCDRC and the material produced
on record, admittedly, there were some marital disputes
between the petitioner and his wife, which culminated in
filing of criminal case, ultimately ended in settlement
before the Lokadalat in the year 2019. The petitioner is
not permitted to drag the respondents-bank before the
KSCDRC in a complaint for deficiency of service as stated
in Section-2(g) of the Act of 1986, as the petitioner has
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
failed to establish deficiency of service as well as the
complaint is in time. We are satisfied with the reasons
given by both the KSCDRC in the complaint, as well as the
NCDRC in the appeal filed against the dismissal of the
complaint. Given the facts, we see no infirmity in the
orders impugned in the petition, that too when both the
KSCDRC, as well as the NCDRC have given liberty to the
petitioner to approach appropriate forum to seek relief in
respect of his grievances against the respondents-bank. F
or the reasons stated supra, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The petition filed calling in question the order dated
29.12.2023, passed in C.C. No.260/2016, on the file
of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore (Principal Bench) vide
Annexure-B and the order dated 25.11.2024 passed
in F.A.No.293/2024 on the file of National Consumer
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18525-DB
HC-KAR
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide
Annexure-A is dismissed.
ii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
JJ
