The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench, consisting of Mrs. Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member), held that banks can be held liable for dishonoring the order of the Banking Ombudsman for resolution of bank-related consumer grievances. The commission emphasized the pro-consumer intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and remanded the matter back to the District Commission for fresh consideration based on merit, against the State Bank of India (SBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Background of the Complaint
The complainant had deposited Rs. 3 Lakhs in the State Bank of India (SBI) branch in Mapusa. However, when she applied for units in the Birla Multi Cap Mutual Fund using cheques from her savings account, the cheques were dishonored by SBI, marked as ‘refer to the drawer,’ despite the availability of funds in her account. The complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman for resolution, and the case was resolved with a compensation amount of Rs. 2,000/- credited to her savings account. However, despite the resolution, the complainant’s debit card remained inactive, and she was denied access to the funds in her account. As a result, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Goa.
District Commission’s Dismissal and Appeal to the State Commission
The District Commission dismissed the complaint at the admission stage, stating that it had no authority to issue directions to the RBI and the Branch Manager of SBI, Mapusa, as they were governed by their own rules and regulations. The District Commission also concluded that the complaint did not indicate any cause of action and was considered non-maintainable. Dissatisfied with this decision, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa.
State Commission’s Decision
The State Commission observed that despite the resolution by the Banking Ombudsman, the complainant was still denied access to her funds, even though there were sufficient funds in her account. The State Commission noted that this issue should have been decided by the District Commission on its merits after admitting the complaint. The State Commission emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act is a pro-consumer legislation, and the rights of consumers should not be ignored. Dismissals without proper application of the Act and consideration could deter consumers from seeking justice. Therefore, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Commission. The District Commission was directed to issue notices to both the RBI and the SBI to appear and file their written versions in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Conclusion
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench, held that banks can be held liable for dishonoring the order of the Banking Ombudsman. The commission remanded the matter back to the District Commission for fresh consideration based on merit. The State Commission emphasized the pro-consumer intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and highlighted the importance of considering consumer rights in such cases.