AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKS LTDTRAVEL RELATED SERVICES vs Rajesh Gupta

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, dated 18.10.1996 by which the appeal of the petitioner - American Express Bank Ltd. was dismissed. The facts leading to this controversy may be briefly stated as under :

RAJESH Gupta, respondent, was complainant before the District Forum, Calcutta. He filed a complaint with the allegations that he being Director of M/s. Jet Star Industries (P) Ltd., had a very urgent business trip for 35 days at a stretch to Germany and to that effect, he was in need of foreign exchange. He contacted his Bankers, i.e. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and he was advised to contact the American Express situated at Netaji Subhash Road for arranging the foreign currency by way of travellers cheques. The petitioner had been to the American Express situated at Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta and requested them to arrange foreign exchange by way of travellers cheques. But the American Express, Calcutta advised the petitioner to collect the travellers cheques as per his requirement from their branch situated at New Delhi. He went to New Delhi on 9th March, 1993 and contacted his Bankers, i.e. the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as well as American Express. Travellers cheques of the American Express amounting to US $ 12,500/- equivalent to Rs. 4,00,000/- were issued at Delhi. On the very same date, i.e. 12th March, 1993, after reaching the airport, the Indian Airlines Office to purchase tickets, the complainant found that the travellers cheques as well as the passport and other relevant papers were missing. The complainant started searching and at last on the next day, the complainant reported the matter to the Police Station, Connaught Circus and the matter was also duly informed to the Bank concerned i.e. American Express Bank Ltd., New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Branch of the Bank). Thereafter, the petitioner on several occasions had been to the Delhi Branch of the Bank for refund of the value of the travellers cheques, but with no results. The complainant had taken the matter with the head office of the American Express at U.S.A., but it bore no results. Again the complainant contacted the General Manager of the Delhi Branch of the Bank, but it also proved to be futile. It was further alleged in the complaint that the travellers cheques issued were never encashed by any person and the amount was lying in the custody of the Bank concerned. In these premises, it was prayed that a direction may be given to the Delhi Branch of the Bank to refund the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. Of course, the complaint was contested on behalf of the Bank. In the written version filed on behalf of the Bank, it was stated that the petitioner had not approached the Forum with clean hands and was guilty of suppressing and concealing material facts from the Forum. The Forum at Calcutta did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner purchased the American Express Travellers Cheques from his Banker - State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in New Delhi. The petitioner allegedly lost his travellers cheques in New Delhi and filed a claim for refund of travellers cheques with the Delhi Branch of Bank in New Delhi. After thorough investigation of the petitioner''s claim, the Delhi Branch of the Bank declined in New Delhi, to refund the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner was at the time of the filing of the refund claim was residing in New Delhi and also carried on business at Noida near New Delhi. The petitioner''s reference to his alleged dialogue or dealings, in respect of impugned travellers cheques, with the office of the Calcutta Branch of the Bank was false, meaningless, misleading and concocted by the petitioner only with the aim of securing territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. No necessary papers were issued nor required to be issued by Calcutta Branch of the Bank to enable the petitioner to purchase American Express Travellers Cheques from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, as it was fully authorised to sell American travellers cheques.

On merits, it was pleaded that American Express customers worldwide prefer to carry foreign exchange in the form of travellers cheques as in the event of lost/theft of travellers cheques, American Express worldwide promises to refund the amount of lost travellers cheques, but only if certain terms and conditions set out in the purchase agreement are fulfilled. At the time of purchase of travellers cheques at Delhi from its Bankers - State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the complainant declared his main address at D319, Nirman Vihar, Delhi - 110 092, and agreed to the terms printed on the reverse of the said receipt. The purchaser''s copy of the Purchase Agreement provided that the Bank would replace or refund the amount shown in any traveller cheque only if you meet all of the requirements i.e. Before Loss "You have safeguarded the travellers cheques as a prudent person would safeguard a like amount of cash". After Loss ".............. ...... Amex reserves the right to investigate the loss or theft". In the refund claim filed by the complainant on 12th March, 1993, it was stated that he had gone to the Indian Airlines Office to cancel a ticket which was kept in a pouch. He cancelled the ticket and purchased a new one. He did not remember whether he had kept his pouch back in the brief case. It was likely that he forgot the pouch containing travellers cheques and Passport at the Indian Airlines Office and thus lost them. The complainant apparently discovered the alleged loss of travellers cheques only upon reaching home and called the Delhi Branch of the Bank Refund Service Centre to report the loss. The complainant filed the police report on the next day, i.e. 13th March, 1993, at Police Station, Connaught Place. The petitioner had clearly reported to the Police that on reaching his home in the evening, he opened his bag and discovered the loss of travel bag containing travellers cheques. The Passport which was reported lost by the complainant alongwith the travellers cheques was mysteriously mailed and restored to the petitioner by an unidentified person. The fact that the petitioner had a valid visa for Germany could not be verified because, according to the complainant, he had lost the passport. After thorough investigation into the petitioner''s claim and antecedents, the Delhi Branch of the Bank by its letter dated May 12, 1993 declined to refund the amount covered by travellers cheques on the ground that the petitioner was in breach of the Purchase Agreement as he had not, before loss, safeguarded the travellers cheques as a prudent person would have safeguarded an amount of US $ 12,500/- but was grossly negligent in its safe keeping in the circumstances declared by the petitioner.

IT was also stated that this was the petitioner''s third claim for refund of American Express Travellers Cheques. In the first instance, on March 28, 1989, the petitioner had purchased American Express Travellers Cheques of US $ 2,000/- in Hongkong. The complainant had lost the entire amount in China on March 29, 1989. He had reported the loss on April 3, 1989, claimed and obtained refund overseas. In the second instance, the petitioner had purchased on August 16, 1991, American Express Travellers Cheques of US $ 1,500/- in Hongkong, lost those travellers cheques in India. In January, 1993 he obtained refund of US $ 900/- in Indian rupees. On both the instances, the petitioner had lost the travellers cheques in dubious circumstances but managed to obtain refunds. In view of this, it was pleaded that there was no negligence or shortfall on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 who had exercised great caution and judgment in declining the dubious refund claim to complainant. In the supplementary objections, filed on behalf of the Bank, it was pleaded that it was the petitioner''s third claim for refund of American Express Travellers Cheques. In the first instance, on March 28, 1989, the complainant had purchased American Express Travellers Cheques of the value of US $ 2,000/- in Hongkong. The complainant allegedly lost the entire amount in China on March 29, 1989. The complainant lodged a claim with the American Express on April 3, 1989 and the entire sum was refunded to the petitioner soon after. However, the travellers cheques allegedly lost by the petitioner were encashed between 17th August and 20th August, 1991 in Hongkong. Xerox copies of the travellers cheques were filed alongwith the supplementary objection. IT was further stated that it would appear from the face of the travellers cheques that the instruments were got encashed by the complainant himself. The signature on the top of the travellers cheques tallied exactly with the signature on the bottom portion of the instruments. The signature on the top of the portion of the travellers cheques is obtained at the time of issuing the travellers cheques while the signature on the bottom portion is obtained at the time of encashing the travellers cheques. A report obtained from the Independent Forensic Laboratories, an American firm of handwriting experts, corroborated the Bank''s stand that the said travellers cheques were got encashed by the complainant himself. IT may also be noted that the complainant was present in Hongkong between 16th and 20th August, 1991 when the travellers cheques were got encashed at Hongkong. The second instance of the complainant having allegedly lost American Express Travellers Cheques was in respect of the travellers cheques purchased by the complainant on 16th August, 1991 in Hongkong of the value of US $ 1,500. The complainant allegedly lost travellers cheques worth US $ 900/- on 9th January, 1993 in New Delhi and lodged a claim with the American Express on the same date. Full refund was made to the complainant in Indian rupees on 9th January, 1993. The original travellers cheques were still outstanding and have not been encashed. However, going by the past fraudulent conduct of the complainant it was reasonably apprehended that the petitioner was allowing sufficient time to elapse whereafter he would encash the same. After taking into consideration the material placed on record by the parties, the District Forum by its order dated the 10th January, 1995, allowed the claim. It was held that the Forum at Calcutta had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits it held that the complainant was entitled to the relief claimed. The opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

THE Bank filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. By order dated the 18th October, 1996, two Members of the State Commission rejected the appeal filed by the Bank. But, the President of the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. In view of the majority Judgment, the appeal was rejected. THE Bank has filed this revision against the order of State Commission which is under disposal before this Commission. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Counsel appearing for the Bank has raised two contentions, (i) that the District Forum at Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action arose at Calcutta; and (ii) there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. It is contended by Mr. Bhasin that the District Forum, Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta. The travellers cheques in question were purchased in Delhi, were lost in Delhi, claim for refund was made in Delhi with the Delhi Branch of the Bank, the matter was investigated by the Delhi Branch of the Bank, rejection of the claim was effected in Delhi by the Delhi Branch of the Bank. However, the claimant chose to file the complaint in Calcutta merely on the basis that the American Express Bank has a Branch at Calcutta. It is indisputable as a general proposition that a body corporate and its branches are not distinct and separate entities from each other and all other transactions entered into ostensibly with the branches are in legal reality transactions with the corporate body. However, it is also now generally agreed that in the case of a Bank which operates through its branches, the branches are regarded for many purposes as separate and distinct entities from the head office and from each other. In support of his arguments he relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Agencia Commercial International Ltd. & Ors. v. Custodian of the Branches of Banco Nacional Ultramarino, 1982 (1) SCC 482, wherein it was held that, "Now it is indisputable as a general proposition that a body corporate and its branches are not distinct and separate entities from each other, that the branches constitute mere components through which the corporate entity expresses itself and that all transactions entered into ostensibly with the branches are in legal reality transactions with the corporate body, and it is with the corporate body that a person must deal directly. But it is also now generally agreed that in the case of a Bank which operates through its Branches, the Branches are regarded for many purposes as separate and distinct entities from the Head Office and from each other."

It was further contended that the complainant himself in his complaint before the District Forum prayed that the American Express Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi be directed to refund the amount of travellers cheques in question. It is difficult to understand as to how the District Forum, Calcutta can give a direction to a Bank in New Delhi to pay the amount. For the Calcutta District Forum to exercise jurisdiction in the present case, it would be necessary that some part of the cause of action had also arisen in Calcutta.

ON the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that under Section 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act a complaint could be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office, or) personally works for gain. Branch office has been defined in Section 2(aa) of the Consumer Protection Act as : "(i) any establishment described as a branch by the opposite party; (ii) any establishment carrying on either the same or substantially the same activity as that carried on by the head office of the establishment. By virtue of the Amendment in 1993, ''Carries on business or has a branch office'' it is clear that an action may be brought at any place where the Bank has a branch irrespective of whether there was a transaction at that branch. Any other interpretation will render the amendment to be meaningless. The Bank has a branch office at 21, Old Court House Street, Calcutta within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta District Forum and, therefore, the District Forum, Calcutta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also argued that the terms of the travellers cheques did not specify that refund would only be granted at a given place. ON the contrary the Bank has, under the heading, If your travellers cheques are lost or stolen, has stated as follows : "Don''t worry. We are here to help you in more ways than one- Round the clock, 365 days a year, you can call any of our refund service centres on the numbers given here and your refund cheques can be hand delivered to you wherever you are, virtually anywhere in the world."

It was also submitted that it was the accepted rule that the Debtor must seek the Creditor. This was all the more applicable in cases where there is no specific place of payment specified. The payment was demanded at Calcutta, a part of the cause of action had arisen at Calcutta. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of L.N. Gupta v. Tara Mani, reported in AIR 1984 Del. 49. We have carefully considered the relevant contentions of both the parties.

ON the point of jurisdiction, the two Members of the State Commission have taken the view that the travellers cheques contained a stipulation that the American Express Travellers Cheques were payable worldwide. There was no stipulation restricting the territorial jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the rule ''The Debtor must seek out the Creditor'' applies and the respondent having taken up residence at Calcutta and having demanded the money at Calcutta, the money was refundable at Calcutta from their office at 2 Old Court House Street, which is within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta District Forum. ON the other hand, the minority view expressed by the President of the State Commission is that the District Forum at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Calcutta. In this context, he relied upon the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Indian Airlines Corporation v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad, reported as II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC), wherein it was held as under : "The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a speedy and... ...inexpensive remedy to consumers as an alternative to the remedy already available to them by way of institution of a suit in the appropriate Civil Court. It does not appear to us to have been intended by Parliament that while instituting a complaint against the Corporation which has its branches spread over all over India, a consumer should have the choice to file his complaint anywhere in the country irrespective of where the cause of action arose merely for the reason that the corporation may have a branch office functioning in the particular place where the complaint is instituted. If Section 11 of the Act were to be interpreted in the manner contended for by the respondents it would lead to anomalous situations which are not conducive to the speedy administration of redressal justice by the Forums. To take one extreme illustration, if in the case of a Banking Company (which is a corporation in the eye of law) in relation to a transaction which took place between a consumer and the branch of the Bank in Kanyakumari, the consumer was to be at liberty to institute his complaint in Srinagar where a branch of the same Bank may be functioning all the records relating to transaction and witnesses who can be in position to speak about it would be at Kanyakumari while the trial of the complaint is to proceed at Srinagar. This would be most inappropriate and undesirable from the point of view of speedy dispensation of justice as also of avoidance of unnecessary harassment, expenditure and inconvenience to the parties. With due respect, we are unable to share the view expressed by the State Commission, Gujarat in its order aforesaid that the object of Parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act was to confer such a choice on the consumers to institute the complaint at any place within the country according to their whims and fancies. In our opinion, it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaints instituted against a corporation Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of the corporation within its territory. We would, therefore, hold that unless one of these tests is satisfied the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum whether it be a District Forum or State Commission will not be legal and the Forum cannot validly exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon such a complaint."

In a recent Judgment, in the case of Union Bank of India v. Seppo Rally OY & Anr., reported in III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 633=10 (1999) CTJ 772, the Supreme Court decided the question of territorial jurisdiction in relation to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads as follows : "Section 11 deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum. Sub-section (1) provides that a District Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services, etc. does not exceed rupees five lakhs. Sub-section (2) provides that in District Forum a complaint could be instituted. This sub-section is as under : 11(2). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Under Section 17 of the Act a State Commission has jurisdiction to decide complaints of the value between rupees five and twenty lakhs but there is no such provision as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act applicable to State Commission. Section 18 of the Act does not make provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 applicable to the State Commission. Each State has its own State Commission. There is purpose for it. First Appeal of the District Forum situated within the State lies to the State Commission and then State Commission can take cognizance of the dispute arising within that State. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that dispute arising in one State could be taken cognizance by State Commission of other State. We have to have purposive interpretation of the provisions and we have to hold that similar provisions as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 with modifications as may be necessary shall be applicable to the State Commission. In fact, these are the basic provisions conferring territorial jurisdiction on a Tribunal otherwise it will lead to absurd situations. We must read into Section 17 the same provisions as contained in Sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Act subject to such modifications as may be applicable to a State Commission. It may also be noticed that under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 17 appeals against orders are heard by the State Commission against the orders of any District Forum within that State. In the present case M/s. Dany Dairy and Food Engineers Ltd. approached the Saharanpur Branch of the Bank to provide Bank Guarantee which it did. The Bank Guarantee was invoked at Saharanpur and payment was also made by the Saharanpur Branch of the Bank. Saharanpur Branch is situated within the State of U.P. No part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. It is difficult to agree with the view of the State Commission also of the National Commission that the State Commission at Delhi had jurisdiction in the matter."

In the light of statement of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India''s case, we have no hesitation in holding that District Forum, Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as no part of cause of action had arisen at Calcutta. The travellers cheques were purchased at Delhi; those were lost in Delhi; matter was reported to the police at Delhi; claim for refund of the amount was lodged with the Delhi Branch of Bank; the matter was investigated by the Delhi Branch of Bank and the claim was rejected by the Delhi Branch and communicated to the complainant at his business address at A-94, Sector-5, NOIDA (U.P.). It is also pertinent to note that in the complaint, the Complainant impleaded American Express Bank Ltd., 21, Old Court House Street, Calcutta and American Express Bank Ltd., L.I.C. Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi as respondents. But, in the prayer clause, directions for payment of the amount were sought only against American Express, Connaught Place, New Delhi. We agree with the view expressed by the President of the State Commission that the District Forum at Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The view taken by the President of the State Commission is affirmed.

It was next contended by Mr. Bhasin that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. He brought to our notice the contradictions and discrepancies mentioned in the written version. He argued that it was strange that the complainant did not lose the Lufthansa Air Ticket or the Indian Airlines Air Ticket from the same brief case. The passport which was reportedly lost by the complainant alongwith the travellers cheques was mysteriously mailed and restored to the complainant by an unidentified person. This was the third time that the complainant lost the travellers cheques in a period of four years. The travellers cheques could be encashed from millions of outlets all over the world. It has no expiry date and could be encashed at any time during the life-time of purchaser. It was practically impossible to put a general stop payment globally. The only step that can be taken was to advise the offices of American Express not to accept stolen travellers cheques. At the time of encashment of the travellers cheques, the only thing one requires to see is that the signatures on the top left-hand corner and bottom left-hand corner on the face of the travellers cheques match with each other. These finally reach the head office of the American Express Travel Related Services in Salt Lake City, USA.

IN the present case, upon investigation when serious discrepancies emerged in the statement of the complainant, his claim for refund was rejected after careful consideration. IN this case it emerged upon investigation that on earlier two occasions also the travellers cheques were lost by the complainant and refund was made on both the occasions. Immediately after the refund was made, the lost travellers cheques surfaced as having been encashed. Those travellers cheques bore the signatures of the complainant. The Forensic Laboratory, to whom the travellers cheques were sent for comparison of signatures opined that the signatures were probably of the same person. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Bank and the claim for refund was rightly and bona fide rejected. On behalf of the complainant, it was submitted that during the period 17th August to 20th August, 1991, the complainant was in Taiwan as would be evident from the endorsement in his passport. If the travellers cheques were lost and fell into the hands of any unscrupulous persons, it may not be difficult to reproduce the signature in close likeness to the signature at the top. The Bank never informed the complainant since 1991 when the travellers cheques were allegedly encashed. It never demanded any explanation from the complainant. The complainant had lost US $ 900 out of US $ 1,500 worth of travellers cheques in August, 1991. The same was refunded. The US $ 12,500 had not been encashed till date.

WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the relevant contentions of the parties. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the Bank has merit. The refund claim was rejected after proper investigation by the Bank. WE have perused the reasoning given by the two Members of the State Commission and the President of the State Commission on this aspect of the case. The two Members of the Commission rendered the following reasons in support of their findings : "So far as other minor points are concerned regarding how he lost the cheques, the same are quite irrelevant at this stage and the same cannot in any way improve the obligation of the appellants for refunding of the money. So far as the allegation that the respondent had earlier encashed lost travellers cheques the respondent has vehemently disputed the same. It has been stated that out of the innumerable occasion the respondent had to travel abroad, a loss of TCs on two or three occasions does not ipso facto prove imprudence. Moreover, the loss of the TCs resulted in cancellation of the trip. The statement that on a previous occasion the respondent had encashed TCs after obtaining refund on lost TCs is vehemently denied by the respondent. The appellant never brought to the notice of the respondent that its TCs have been encashed. The plea was taken for the first time in the proceeding before the CDF. The document produced was a purported certificate from one "Independent Forensic Laboratories" of Utah, U.S.A., an unknown entity and of doubtful credibility, to prove the same. Even the said purported expert has qualified his statement by the term "probably of common authorship". The same, therefore, cannot withstand even elementary scrutiny to be admitted in evidence. Further, it is pertinent to point out that even if the TCs on one occasion has been encashed, the appellants have themselves conceded that some TCs worth US 900 dollars which was refunded on declaration of loss by the respondent on a later occasion has not been encashed till date. Therefore, there is no truth in the appellant''s statement." The findings recorded by the President of the State Commission read as follows : "Coming now to the question of the deficiency in service alleged against the appellants it is found that the appellants caused a detailed enquiry about the allegation of loss of the travellers cheques in question and came to the conclusion that the allegation was not a genuine one. They had taken into consideration the careless manner in which the cheques in question are alleged to have been lost, that there was discrepancy in the statement of the complainant regarding the manner in which the cheques were lost, that the passport in question which was a most valuable document and which is also alleged to have been lost alongwith the cheques was returned mysteriously by some unknown person and that the complainant had a history of losing similar cheques on two more occasions in the past. The facts alleged in this regard are not such disputed. It is really intriguing that valuable documents including a passport were lost by a serious passenger in a trite manner on the way and that the passport came back conveniently by post from an unknown thief. Particularly the past records of the complainant grow suspicion about the genuineness of this claim. If the appellants had repudiated the claim for refund of the value of the cheques after considering all these facts it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service in this case. The Lower Court has treated the matter with rather levity and it ought to have seriously considered the consequences of the allegations alleged and controverted in this case. Taking into consideration the facts and reasonable probabilities I do not think that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in rejecting the claim. This point is thus decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondent/complainant. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The appeal is allowed and the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-."

We have not been able to appreciate the view taken by the two Members of the State Commission that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the President of the State Commission. The view expressed by the President is well founded and is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. The refund claim was rejected by the Bank after holding detailed enquiry and proper investigation. Repudiation of the claim by the Bank was in good faith after due application of mind to relevant facts and circumstances. After having gone through the records, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said in this case that the repudiation of claim made by Bank is either arbitrary or unreasonable. Such being the position, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the Bank so as to give rise to a cause of action for a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the two learned Members of the State Commission have been definitely in error in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The view taken by the President of the State Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank is legally correct and is sustainable in law. Agreeing with the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the President, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. In the light of the above observations, we accept the Revision Petition and set aside the majority view of the State Commission as well as the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition allowed.