Supreme Court Restores Consumer Forum’s Order Against SBI for Negligence in Account Mismanagement
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr., addressing a dispute involving gross mismanagement of a savings account by the respondent bank. The judgment restores the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order, which had held SBI liable for its negligence, overturning the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Background of the Case
The appellant, Sunil Kumar Maity, maintained a savings account with SBI since January 2000. On February 24, 2010, his account number was changed to 10140478732. When he visited the bank on September 15, 2012, to deposit ₹500, a staff member informed him that his account number had changed again and wrote a new number, 32432609504, on his passbook. Without verifying, Maity deposited the amount into the new account.
On January 16, 2013, he deposited a ₹3,00,000 cheque drawn on SBI by one Prabir Pradhan. When he updated his passbook on December 11, 2013, he was shocked to find that his balance was only ₹59, despite making no transactions during the period.
Upon inquiry, the bank informed him that the new account number belonged to another customer, Sunil Maity (Respondent No. 2), and the bank had mistakenly given him the wrong account number. The other Sunil Maity had withdrawn ₹1,00,000 on January 25, 2013, and ₹2,00,000 on January 28, 2013. The appellant wrote multiple letters to SBI, but no corrective action was taken, prompting him to file a consumer complaint.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Sunil Kumar Maity)
- The petitioner contended that the bank’s mismanagement resulted in a wrongful transfer of funds to another individual’s account.
- He argued that the bank was solely responsible for the error and should compensate him for the loss.
- The petitioner emphasized that he had no knowledge of the other customer and could not have known his account number.
Arguments by the Respondent (State Bank of India & Another)
- The bank argued that the mistake was unintentional and resulted from the customer failing to verify his new account number.
- It contended that Maity should have checked his passbook and transaction details before making deposits.
- The bank maintained that since the money was withdrawn by another account holder, it was not liable for reimbursement.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, found the bank’s negligence evident and held SBI responsible for the mismanagement of the petitioner’s account.
The Court ruled:
“No customer should be expected to verify a bank-assigned account number when the change is initiated by the bank itself. The bank’s error led to the unauthorized withdrawal of the petitioner’s funds, and it must take full responsibility.”
The Court further stated:
“It is virtually impossible for one to know the account number of another person. The bank, having made the mistake, should have been extra cautious while assigning new account numbers to its customers.”
Criticizing the NCDRC’s handling of the case, the Court observed:
- “The NCDRC erred in setting aside the Consumer Forum’s decision without considering the negligence of the bank.”
- “The NCDRC had called for an additional report from SBI during the revision stage, which was beyond its jurisdiction.”
- “The Consumer Protection Act is meant to provide speedy and effective remedies to consumers, and its jurisdiction cannot be curtailed by redirecting cases to civil courts.”
Final Judgment
- The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s decision and reinstated the order of the Consumer Forum and State Commission.
- SBI was directed to compensate the petitioner for the full amount lost, along with applicable interest.
- The bank was also ordered to pay litigation costs for the petitioner.
Implications of the Judgment
- The ruling reinforces the accountability of banks in managing customer accounts.
- It emphasizes that financial institutions cannot shift the burden of their errors onto customers.
- The decision upholds consumer rights and ensures that banks take due diligence in handling account transitions.
- The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, preventing banks from avoiding liability in instances of mismanagement.
Petitioner Name: Sunil Kumar Maity.Respondent Name: State Bank of India and Another.Judgment By: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Bela M. Trivedi.Place Of Incident: West Bengal.Judgment Date: 21-01-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: sunil-kumar-maity-vs-state-bank-of-india-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-21-01-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Banking Regulations
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in Judgment by Bela M. Trivedi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
