The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, has reaffirmed that consumer forums must prioritize substantive justice over rigid procedural compliance. In a significant ruling, the Commission remanded a complaint alleging unauthorized ATM withdrawal after finding that technical deficiencies in evidence filing could not justify outright dismissal of a dispute involving substantial factual questions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Nibir Kumar Pal, maintained a savings bank account with the State Bank of India, Calcutta Airport Branch. An ATM card was issued in connection with this account. On 08.03.2017, the appellant attempted to withdraw Rs.3,500 from an SBI ATM at Kolkata Airport but the transaction failed. He subsequently withdrew the same amount from another ATM within the same premises. Later that day, he discovered an unauthorized debit of Rs.19,000 from his account at 8:44 a.m., which he did not authorize, initiate, or even know about.
Key Facts
- The appellant first noticed the unauthorized transaction on 18.03.2017
- He immediately contacted the Bank’s customer care and approached the Branch Manager seeking clarification and CCTV footage
- Written representations were submitted on 30.03.2017 and 02.05.2017
- The Bank did not provide a substantive response or produce transaction logs or CCTV records
- The appellant filed Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/392/2021 before the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat
- The complaint alleged deficiency in service, negligence, and failure to safeguard customer funds
Procedural History
- 08.03.2017: Unauthorized ATM withdrawal of Rs.19,000 occurs
- 18.03.2017: Appellant discovers unauthorized transaction
- 30.03.2017: First written representation to the Bank
- 02.05.2017: Second written representation to the Bank
- 2021: Consumer Complaint filed before District Commission
- 17.05.2023: District Commission dismisses complaint on grounds of defective evidence affidavit under Section 38(9)(b) and (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with Order XVIII CPC
- 15.06.2026: First Appeal filed before State Commission; appeal allowed and matter remanded
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Position: The District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds. The evidence, though imperfectly formatted, was sufficient to raise a prima facie case. The core issue - unauthorized withdrawal - required examination of bank records, ATM logs, and SMS alerts, none of which were evaluated.
Respondent’s Position: The Bank contended that the transaction was legitimate, asserting that the appellant used three different ATM cards on the same day. It claimed SMS alerts were sent and computerized records confirmed the transaction. It further alleged suppression of facts and lack of clean hands.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (i) declaration that the Bank was liable for unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.19,000; (ii) compensation for mental agony and financial loss; (iii) direction to the Bank to improve security protocols; and (iv) costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a consumer forum may dismiss a complaint solely on the ground of a curable procedural defect in the evidence affidavit, without examining the substantive dispute involving alleged unauthorized banking transactions.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a beneficial legislation designed for simple, inexpensive, and efficacious redressal. The defect in the affidavit was technical and curable, not fatal. The Commission ought to have permitted rectification, especially since the Bank possessed objective electronic records - ATM logs, transaction authentication data, SMS delivery records - that could have resolved the dispute. Reliance was placed on the principle that procedural rules must serve justice, not obstruct it.
For the Respondent
The Bank contended that the complaint was frivolous and lacked credible evidence. It argued that the appellant’s failure to comply with mandatory affidavit requirements under Section 38(9)(b) and (c) of the Act rendered the complaint legally unsustainable. It further asserted that its own records conclusively proved the transaction was authorized and that the appellant had not discharged his burden of proof.
The Court's Analysis
The State Commission began by acknowledging that the District Commission was not wrong in observing procedural irregularities in the evidence affidavit. However, it emphasized that such observations cannot be transformed into a ground for outright dismissal when the underlying dispute involves substantial factual questions.
"The real question is not whether such defect existed. The real question is whether the existence of such defect justified termination of the entire proceeding without adjudication of the substantive dispute between the parties."
The Commission drew a critical distinction between absence of evidence and defective mode of proof. It held that where evidence is placed on record but suffers from formal defects - such as improper verification, lack of signature, or non-compliance with affidavit norms - the forum must assess whether the defect is curable and whether justice requires an opportunity to rectify it.
The Commission noted that the Bank itself had submitted a written version asserting that three ATM cards were used, that SMS alerts were sent, and that transaction logs confirmed the withdrawal. Yet, the District Commission made no attempt to verify these claims. No examination was conducted of the Bank’s own digital records, which are inherently reliable and accessible.
"The truthfulness or otherwise of the rival claims could therefore have been tested with reference to objective records available with the Bank. Yet, the complaint came to be dismissed without any meaningful examination of such materials."
The Commission further rejected the notion that Order XVIII CPC could be used to create a substantive bar to adjudication. It held that procedural provisions are interpretative aids, not substantive barriers. To treat every affidavit defect as fatal would convert the Consumer Protection Act into a technical trap, defeating its very purpose.
The Commission also emphasized that the burden of proof in banking disputes involving electronic transactions cannot rest solely on the consumer. The Bank, as custodian of digital records, holds superior access to evidence. Its failure to produce transaction logs, authentication timestamps, or SMS delivery reports rendered its defense incomplete and untested.
The Verdict
The appeal succeeded. The Final Order dated 17.05.2023 of the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the District Commission for fresh adjudication. The appellant shall be permitted to file a properly verified evidence on affidavit and additional admissible documents. The Bank shall be at liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence, including ATM logs, card issuance records, SMS delivery reports, and authentication trails. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 14.07.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Defects Are Not Fatal in Consumer Cases
- Practitioners must argue that technical non-compliance with affidavit formats under Section 38(9) cannot override the substantive duty to adjudicate
- Consumer forums must exercise discretion to permit rectification before dismissal
- Courts must distinguish between absence of evidence and defective presentation
Banks Bear Burden of Producing Digital Records
- In ATM fraud or unauthorized transaction cases, banks must proactively produce transaction logs, authentication data, and SMS delivery records
- Reliance on internal assertions without supporting documentation is insufficient
- Failure to produce digital footprints may lead to adverse inference
Consumer Forums Must Prioritize Merits Over Formalities
- The beneficial nature of the Consumer Protection Act mandates a liberal approach to procedure
- Forums must ask: "Can this defect be cured? Does justice require adjudication?"
- Dismissals on technical grounds without examining bank records are legally unsustainable
