Consumer Wins Rs 17.5 Lakh Battle After 23-Year Wait
The District Consumer Court has directed Union Bank to refund Rs 17.5 lakh, withdrawn without permission from a customer’s account. The court also imposed 5% yearly interest and called the bank’s act an unfair trade practice.
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Union Bank of India to return Rs 17.5 lakh to customer Manoj Agrawal, along with 5% simple annual interest, for money that was withdrawn without his permission.
What Happened?
Manoj Agrawal, who lives in Ambalikapuri Colony, Chittapur-Sigra, filed a complaint in the Consumer Commission. He said that he opened a savings account at Union Bank’s Chetganj branch on 25 January 2001. Between January 2001 to February 2002, he deposited Rs 24,87,250 and withdrew Rs 7,47,198.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
So, by 20 February 2002, he should have had Rs 17,50,052 in his account.
But without his knowledge, the following amounts were withdrawn:
- Rs 3,25,000 on 28 September 2001
- Rs 14,25,000 on 13 October 2001
“These amounts were withdrawn without my permission,”
-said Manoj Agrawal in his complaint.
Social Image Affected
He also mentioned that on 28 January 2004, he gave a cheque of Rs 50,000 to a firm named United Sales Agency, but it bounced due to “insufficient funds”.
“This insulted my social reputation,”
-said Manoj.
When he checked his passbook, he found that only Rs 714 was left in his account on 1 January 2003, and just Rs 601 on 3 February 2004.
He claimed that the bank tried to hide the scam by giving the passbook in two separate parts. He even sent a legal notice to the bank on 21 February 2004, but the bank did not reply.
What Did the Bank Say?
Union Bank argued in court that Manoj Agrawal’s father, Satyanarayan Agrawal, was a partner in two companies:
- Sonu Associates
- United Sales Corporation
The bank said these firms had taken a loan of Rs 1,08,45,652. Under a one-time settlement (OTS) scheme, a deal was made for Rs 29,76,000, and according to the bank, Manoj “gave verbal consent” to withdraw Rs 17.5 lakh from his own account to help pay this amount.
ALSO READ: Think You Own That Property? Supreme Court Says Registration Isn’t Enough
The bank insisted,
“This was a proper transaction, and not fraud.”
What Did the Commission Decide?
But the Consumer Commission found that:
- The bank had no written proof of Manoj Agrawal’s consent.
- There was no evidence showing Manoj was a partner in either of the two firms.
- Only his father was involved, and the son cannot be held responsible.
The Commission said-
“The bank’s actions were clearly an unfair trade practice”.
Final Judgment
On 5 June 2025, the Commission, including Chairman Surendra Kumar Singh and Member Suman Dubey, passed the final order.
They said:
“The bank must return Rs 17,50,000 within 30 days to the customer with 5% annual simple interest starting from 13 October 2001.”
The bank was also told to pay Rs 5,000 towards legal expenses.
However, the court rejected the Rs 1,65,000 compensation demand made by Manoj for mental and social damage.
This case was first decided on 25 July 2009, but during an appeal (No. 2167/2009), the State Commission cancelled that decision and ordered a fresh hearing, which finally ended on 28 October 2024.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Consumer Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
