Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
State Bank Of India vs Dr. J.C.S. Kataky on 3 May, 2017 cites

State Bank Of India vs K.K. Bhalla on 7 April, 2011

14.     Further in "State Bank of India vs. K.K. Bhalla" [II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC)], it was observed that the ATM card was very much in possession of the complainant and only he was aware of the four digit PIN number.  The matter related to the withdrawal of money from the ATM machine.  This Commission held that the withdrawal could not take place unless the ATM card or PIN fell in wrong hands.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Rubi(Chandra) Dutta vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 18 March, 2011

19.     A plain reading of this provision is sufficient to establish that once the complaint was made citing specific incidents of unauthorised withdrawal, it was the duty of the Bank to have carried out the necessary verification in the matter, rather than washing their hands off from the whole episode.  Evidently, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, vis-à-vis, the consumer/complainant.  It is held, therefore, that the consumer fora below have made a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record which deciding the complaint in favour of the complainant.  Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that the powers in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction are used only if there is a jurisdictional error or material defect in the orders passed by the consumer fora below.  We are supported in this assertion by an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269]".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 420 - D Verma - Full Document
1