State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India, Roopalay Building, ... vs Rajinder Nath Chawla Son Of Shri Sant Lal ... on 17 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1234 of 2011 Date of Institution: 02.09.2011 Date of Decision: 17.07.2012 State Bank of India, Roopalay Building, Plot No.405-406/28, Model Town, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager. Appellant (OP) Versus Rajinder Nath Chawla son of Shri Sant Lal Chawla, Resident of H.No.261, Subhash Nagar, Rohtak. Respondent ( BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Shri K.S. Arya, Advocate for appellant. Shri Dinesh Arora, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was accepted by granting following relief:-
.it is observed that the respondent shall ay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and for harassment and mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. It is made clear that if amount is not paid within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, it shall fetch interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.04.2008 till its realization. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Resultantly the complaint is partly allowed.
For purchasing 225 shares of Reliance Power, the complainant had sent a Multi City Cheque bearing No.000052 dated 15.01.2008 for Rs.25,875/- of the cheque book issued by SBI Rohtak, which was payable at part at all other bank branches of SBI. At that time, the complainant was having a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in his account but the officials of the Bank wrongly dishonoured the cheque and returned to the complainant whereas there was sufficient amount in his account. Thus, alleging it deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
While contesting the complaint, the opposite party admitted the fact that the cheque was inadvertently returned to the complainant. However, denying the other allegations of the complainant prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Admittedly, the cheque was sent by the complainant for purchasing of the shares but the same was dishonoured by the bank wrongly despite the fact that there was sufficient amount in the account of the complainant for encashment. Thus, deficiency in service stands proved against the appellant-opposite party. However, at the same time we feel that the observation made by the District Forum with respect to the deficiency of service on the part of appellant-opposite party is not to that extent as has been projected in the impugned order. The cheque was of Rs.25,875/-. It is not the case of the complainant that the cheque was misplaced anywhere and it was misused by any one. Therefore, in our view the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded to the complainant for deficiency in service and for harassment and mental agony and financial loss is on higher side and we reduce it from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. However, no interference qua the other relief of interest and litigation expenses and the same is upheld.
The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and this appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 17.07.2012 President (Dr. Rekha Sharma) Member