State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bank Of India Branch Chacher vs Watu Tikaram Narole on 15 February, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. FA/12/343 (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/05/2012 in Case No. cc/12/09 of District Gondia) 1. Bank of India Branch Chacher Branch Chacher Tah- Mauda Nagpur ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Watu Tikaram Narole R/o Chandori (B) Tah- Tirora Gondia ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: Advocate Mr.Uday Gosavi For the Respondent: Advocate Mr.H.M.Sahare. Dated : 15 Feb 2017 Final Order / Judgement PER MR. JUSTIC A.P.BHANGALE, HON'BLE PRESIDENT. 1.
Heard submissions at bar. The grievance of the appellant is that there was a promise between the appellant and the original complainant Mr.Vatu Tikaram Narole, who is no more living at present and he represented by his Legal Representatives and also Shri H.M.Sakhare. It appears that in the land acquisition proceedings agricultural land Gat Number 1, 2 and 3, clause No.1 at survey No.16, Tiroda, District Gondiya, compensation for the acquired land was fixed at Rs.6,662/- on the basis of acquisition made on 16/02/2006. The compensation amount was paid by cheque from Land Acquisition Officer, Gondiya on 17/09/2007, that cheque drawn upon State Bank, Gondiya bearing No.600473 was presented at the appellant's branch for encashment on or about 22/09/2007. On encashment Branch Manager informed the complainant that the amount of cheque (-) recovery expenses was deposited in the Account Number 2360 of the complainant. While complainant came to know that the cheque was returned to the opposite party, but it was missing. Later on according to appellant there was a compromise between the Bank and the complainant whereby sum of Rs.3000/- was offered and complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint proceeding. Accordingly amount of Rs.3000/- was deposited in the account of complainant.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that the complaint though agreed to be withdrawn was not withdrawn, by the complainant. In fact the compromise pursis copy of which its brought to our notice, mentioned the endorsement of the complainant that he had no complaint against Bank and he will withdrawn the complaint from the Forum concerned. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, this material fact could have been inquired in to and noted by learned Forum to dispose of the complaint. However the Forum proceeded to award not only the amount of cheque in the sum of Rs.6662/- but also exorbitant interest and damages, cost of litigation and also punitive damages which were uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. According to learned Advocate for respondent, the complainant was illiterate and Senior Citizen, Aged about 75 years and Bank may have taken unfair advantage of his illiteracy to obtain his thump impression to compromise of withdrawal of the complaint.
4. We find that the cheque amount was in the sum of Rs.6,660/- only inrespect of which, it is case of the appellant that deceased complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaint by accepting the sum of Rs.3000/- which was in fact disputed in his Bank Account.
5. Since complainant is no more living, there would be no useful purpose to remanding controversy back to the Forum to record findings as to validity of compromise, in view of the submission made before us. However we find it reasonable and just to ask the appellant to pay amount of cheque i.e. Rs.6662 (- ) the amount already deposited with the Bank Account of the complainant, as also sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant for pursuing his right to recover the cheque amount from the Bank. We maintain the cost of litigation awarded in the sum of Rs.5000/-. Thus sum of Rs.18,662/- is being allowed. The appeal allowed partly with a direction to the Bank to pay sum of Rs.18,662/- as aggregate amount payable to the Legal Representatives who shall be at liberty to withdraw amount deposited by the appellants with the State Commission, Demand Draft dated 13/07/2012 drawn on Bank of India, service Branch at Nagpur in the name of Registrar (Legal) of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Circuit Bench, Nagpur. After payment of the amount as awarded infavour of the complainants, rest of the amount be returned to the Bank.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] JUDICIAL MEMBER