Disposed

Mrs Kiran Tewary v. the Banking Imbudsman, Kolkata Centre and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Nov 2021WPA/14390/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a complaint against State Bank of India for unauthorized deduction. The court held the Ombudsman's finding not conclusive, allowing the petitioner to initiate civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to institute appropriate civil and/or other proceedings. State Bank of India allegations not deemed admitted due to absence of affidavit.

Mrs Kiran Tewary Vs the Banking Imbudsman, Kolkata… — Consumer Protection | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

24.11.2021. Court No.13 Item No. 37 ap

¶2

W.P.A. No. 14390 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)

¶3

Mrs. Kiran Tewary Versus

¶4

The Banking Ombudsman, Kolkata Center & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Anindya Bose, Mr. Chandrachur Chatterjee, Mr. Diptendu Mondal.

¶6

...For the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Subhabrata Datta, Mr. Abdus Salam.

¶8

…For the State. Mr. Debashis Saha, Ms. Dipika Basu, Ms. Namrata Chatterjee.

¶9

…For the respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶10

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

¶11

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Banking Ombudsman dated 17^th March, 2021 whereby his complaint against the State Bank of India as regards unauthorized deduction of Rs.65,000/from her account has been rejected.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to a fraudulent telephone call, she has been duped into parting with a sum of Rs.65,000/- from her account. The said account is held with the State Bank of India.

¶13

It is submitted that the Ombudsman has borrowed a statement from the FIR registered by Rabindra Sarober Police Station that the petitioner has

¶14

¶15

shared her OTP with the telecaller. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not stated in her complaint that she has, in fact, shared such OTP.

¶16

Counsel for the State Bank of India submits that in the absence of OTP, the transaction could not have been completed and the OTP is only sent to the petitioner’s mobile phone.

¶17

It is submitted that the Bank warns its customer from sharing the OTP with anybody.

¶18

This Court is of the view that the finding of the Banking Ombudsman cannot be conclusive in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶19

Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to institute appropriate civil and/or other proceedings. In the event of such proceeding being instituted, the Forum shall be proceeded to deal the same, uninfluenced by any observations made by the Banking Ombudsman.

¶20

Since the State Bank of India has not used any affidavit, the allegations made in this writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted by them.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶22

There will be no order as to costs.

¶23

¶24

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶25

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )

Mrs Kiran Tewary v. the Banking Imbudsman, Kolkata Centre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kiran Tewary v. the Banking Imbudsman, Kolkata Centre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sunita Seal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Manu Sarkar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bhagirath Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Shadab Hussain and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Asit Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ranu Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.