NDLI: Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Consumer Protection Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional jurisdiction of National Consumer Commission – Ambit and scope – Consumer complaint against bank by a customer (appellant) alleging blunder in credit of cheque amount – The amount was credited to account of second respondent, another customer with a similar name who was having account in the same bank branch – Complaint allowed by Consumer Forum – Order partly upheld by State Consumer Commission – Revision application filed by respondent-bank against order of State Consumer Commission allowed by National Consumer Commission – Propriety – Held: On facts, not proper – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission u/s.21(b) is extremely limited – It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity – In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, came to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required – Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27, CPC – Apart from the fact that there is a vast difference between exercise of appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission –Under the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted – Impugned order of National Commission accordingly set aside. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complaint before forum under the Act – Entertainability – Held: The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry – Requirement of leading detailed evidence cannot be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Consumer Protection Act. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, r.27 – Evidence – Production of additional evidence – Requirements for – Held: Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as contemplated in Order XLI, r.27 – The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Inapplicability – When – On facts, held: The National Consumer Commission grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement of Counsel for the respondent-bank that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court – Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as s.5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 84
Petitioner	Sunil Kumar Maity
Respondent	State Bank Of India And Anr.
SCR	[2022] 1 S.C.R. 258
Judgement Date	2022-01-21
Case Number	432

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi Vs. Saurashta Gramin Bank & Anr

State of Uttaranchal &anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors.

The State of Gujarat Vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.

Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Anr.

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr.

Sovintorg (india) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi

State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.s. Agricultural Industries (i)

Arun Bhatiya Vs. Hdfc Bank & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi Vs. Saurashta Gramin Bank & Anr

State of Uttaranchal &anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors.

The State of Gujarat Vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.

Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Anr.

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr.

Sovintorg (india) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi

State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.s. Agricultural Industries (i)

Arun Bhatiya Vs. Hdfc Bank & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.