The Supreme Court of India held that deficiency in service w.r.t.the service provided by the bank employees has not been proven by the complainant.
The Chairman and Managing Director of City Union Bank Ltd. appeal against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order in a consumer complaint filed by R. Chandramohan. Chandramohan sought direction to the bank to re-credit INR 8 lakhs from two demand drafts to his Current Account No. 3600. The dispute arose when the drafts were credited to a separate account named “D-Cube Construction” instead of Chandramohan’s account. The State Commission allowed the complaint and ordered the bank to pay Chandramohan INR 8 lakhs and compensation of INR one lakh. The appellants contend that the bank is not deficient in its service.
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, as 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.
In the instant case, respondent-complainant having failed to discharge his burden to prove that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the appellants-bank, the consumer complaint fails.
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CITY UNION BANK LTD. & ANR. …..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
R. CHANDRAMOHAN …..RESPONDENT decided by the Supreme Court of India on 29.03.23