State Bank Of India vs Gopal Sen
2022 Latest Caselaw 14240 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18112/2022

State Bank Of India, Having Its Corporate Centre At Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Local Head Office At Tilakmarg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Branch Office At Agriculture Development Branch (Adb), Badgaon, Udaipur Through Its Chief Manager.

----Petitioner

Versus

Gopal Sen S/o Late Aatma Ram Ji, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Chikalwas, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.

                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :        Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s)             :


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
                       Judgment / Order

05/12/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-bank being aggrieved

with the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,

Udaipur (for short ' the PLA) whereby, the application filed by the

petitioner-bank for setting aside the ex parte order dated 02.05.2022

passed by the PLA has been dismissed. The petitioner-bank has also

challenged the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the PLA whereby, the

application filed by the respondent under Section 22 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987') has been

allowed by the PLA and the petitioner-bank is directed to make payment

of Rs.72,500/- along with interest as payable on category of bank

account from 12.02.2020.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a

complaint with the petitioner-bank on 18.02.2020 stating therein that in

the intervening night of 11.02.2020 and 12.02.2020, some

unauthorized ATM transactions took place from his account and a total

(2 of 4) [CW-18112/2022]

sum of Rs.72,500/- has been unauthorizedly withdrawn by some

unknown persons from his account.

The petitioner-bank inquired into the details of the matter and

after obtaining requisite information has forwarded the complaint of the

respondent to the Chief Manager of the petitioner-bank. The Chief

Manager of the petitioner-bank has concluded that as per the RBI

Circulars no amount, as claimed, is payable to the respondent by the

petitioner-bank. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Internal

Ombudsman of the petitioner-bank and the Ombudsman of the

petitioner-bank has also concluded that the petitioner-bank has rightly

rejected claim of the respondent.

When the respondent has failed to get any relief from the

petitioner-bank, he approached the PLA by filing application under

Section 22 of the Act of 1987. The PLA has issued summons to the

petitioner-bank, but despite service of summons, none appeared on

behalf of the petitioner-bank, therefore, ex parte proceedings were

initiated against it and the PLA has passed the impugned award dated

02.05.2022 whereby, direction is issued to the petitioner-bank to make

payment of Rs.72,500/- to the respondent within a period of two

months along with interest payable on the category of bank account

from 12.02.2020.

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-bank has filed an

application for recalling of the order dated 02.05.2022, however, the

same has been dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2022 hence this writ

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-bank has submitted that due to

inadvertence the summons issued by the PLA on the complaint filed by

the respondent could not be noticed by the bank officials as the same

were mingled with the other documents which prevented the petitioner-

(3 of 4) [CW-18112/2022]

bank to appear before the PLA. It is also submitted that the said

mistake of the petitioner-bank is bonafide, but the PLA has not taken

into consideration the above fact and illegally passed the impugned

order dated 09.11.2022.

It is also submitted that the petitioner-bank has not committed

any illegality in rejecting the claim of the respondent because different

ATM transactions carried out from the bank account of the respondent

were up to Rs. 10,000/- or less and as per the policy issued by the RBI,

any transaction less than Rs.10,000/- is not liable to be compensated if

the complaint regarding such unauthorized ATM transactions is filed

within four to seven working days from the date of those transactions.

It is submitted that though, total Rs.72,500/- were illegally withdrawn

from the bank account of the respondent, but the same were withdrawn

by different transactions of less than or up to Rs.10,000/-, therefore,

the bank has rightly rejected the claim of the respondent. It is also

submitted that the respondent has not brought the actual facts before

the PLA and without noticing the same, the PLA has illegally passed the

award dated 02.05.2022.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material

available on record.

It is not in dispute that unauthorized ATM transactions were

carried out from the bank account of the respondent and a total amount

of Rs.72,500/- was withdrawn. The respondent has filed a complaint to

the petitioner-bank within seven days of those unauthorized ATM

transactions. It is not the case of the petitioner-bank that those

unauthorized transactions were carried out on account of any negligent

act on the part of the respondent. The petitioner-bank is also of the

opinion that the said transactions were carried out by some unknown

fraudster.

(4 of 4) [CW-18112/2022]

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the

case, particularly the fact that the unauthorized ATM transactions from

the bank account of the respondent were not carried out on account of

his negligence or action, I do not find any illegality in the impugned

award dated 02.05.2022 passed by the PLA, Udaipur.

So far as the order passed by the PLA dated 09.11.2022 whereby,

the application filed by the petitioner-bank for setting aside the ex parte

award dated 02.05.2022 is concerned, I am of the view that the PLA

has also not committed any illegality passing the same because the

reasons given by the petitioner-bank for its non appearance before the

PLA in the proceedings initiated pursuant to the application filed by the

respondent under Section 22 of the Act of 1987 are absolutely frivolous

and without any basis. The Nationalized Bank has not given due respect

to the notice of the Court but offered of lame excuse which is difficult to

digest.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition and the same is dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/149-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)