Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Bm, Indian Bank, Belapdapatna Branch vs Bhikari Sahoo on 1 February, 2023

        !
    I
    I
I

I
                   BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
                           COM M ISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK


                                F.A.O.NO.              202L

                  IN THE MATTER OF:

                                An appeal Uls.4t of the Consumer
                                Protection Act,2019;

                                            AND

                  IN THE MATTER OF:

                                An application challenging the legality
                                and propriety of the order dtd.27 .10.2020

                                passed by the learned District Consumer

                                 Disputes Redressal Forum, Nayagarh in
                                C.C.Case No.39/2019;


                                            AND
                  IN THEMATTER OF:
                                 The Branch Manager, lndian Bank,
                                 Belapadapatna Branch, AllP.O.lP.S.-
                                 Ga nia, Dist.-Nayaga rh-752085



                                        ro n n
                                                       j;'"'" ;; ;#iffil
                                                 1;;;:
                                 Bhikari Sahoo, aged about 55 years, Son of

                                 Late Gopinath Sahoo, At-Bijay Nagar, P.O.-

            c\"                  Belapada Patna, P.S.-Gania, Dist.-Nayagarh,

                                 Pin Code No.752085.                            :t
                                                                               .J,




                                            (Complainant in the court below)
                   l
                                                                                               i
      r! i,rrl    i          lljt,-.e,,                                                        l''ff:c€ notr its t,; *liii;, i (ii .,i,;),
                                                     ,fsiileii,v!-1-31 r{iGiu,q.t-Litdf
 ,;i 1-;'ri-1;{-:il (,)y,'i,,;,                                                                j           taken 0n Gl'der
 -   -. *---.--
                  I
                  I
                  tr--, -.   -
                                          i
                                          rt
                                                                    ". flr4f%14-           ----!'



                                                                                               I
                                                        I{eard Learned Counsel {or thc appeliani. l'ioiir;

                                               appears for respondent.

2. This appeal has been filef U/S- l5 ,.ri' ('c' I-l S Lt lll r: t' I protection Act 1986(I{earin a ftcr icallcd thc Acr) ;ttla irir: i i I impugned order passed by L$ar iie,J Districr rl.li ii I i partlos ir,'c i'cici-i',:d to :ir I complaint case may be read as {;ame in this apli ca I Ii,r conveniellce.

3. The case of the complai t in nut-sllcli i:; ti,iir I cc''mplainant has got S.B account ilir tilc U.P iJanri, il alleged inter-alia that the cornplairiant dt:positeci citicriic c,i Rs. 2,00,000/- of central Bank o[ inclia in thc ow,ri :].ii account but the o.P did not er{cash saici chequc. 'l'lrL:

complainant aske<.i o.P to cncash ihJe cheque or r-e1urn,:i! ri,.r same but no response \ /as madp by the O.p. So tiir:
complaint was fiied..
oG P-i1,,1 P-CTC p (FS&CW ) 2- 1,0{1, 000-2 9 -6-202ti 'l i l 1 I I .iir, 'i.-. i \, t ..r:,1:_l ,)l I ;- rGi',!l\i"[-ri?.i:: a.iii i-iO',ii:i eif.: il,.lr'aiilli i'.i rilr'U t.
                                                      : Fl
                                            ,."J!il
         (]iiier        i
lll'<e,r'l 'i]", i-i ''.;i:':l' 2- L, I i ,-.- .-'*--- ..-" ,,t* - --,.* r i i

4. Complaint was ad mitteq and notice was issucri I 1Er i I the O.P for his appearance but thi,: OP neither appeard nr.ri' I I filed written version on the date fixcd as such thc O.P wl., I set exparte.

i

5. After hearing of both pafties the L.carncd Districl i Commission passed the following ilrder:

"i I "The complainant's Case is allowed on i ex-parte against the OP. Thp OP is directed to i pay Rs. 2,00,0001- r.e amc]unt of thc chcqur:
bearing No. 009982 along i *itn nr. 10.000/- towards compensation fbr lmental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for cost of i titigation to the ! complainant within two morith from the date ol I this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12 % interest per annum."

6. Learned Counsel on beh{lf of appellant subniiitcd I .i not appear and appellant has not giiren any opportunity to i I I .-ri d-*8.:

:r ,': ,\l =qir+:._ir I i { 4 , Ii. iio" i ,.i::;.e ri' !; i-:i{i-l[iq ,#il']-l ' :s!GhjA[-lJ[tH j' ({ ur \L icffice rr'lte as to ar:tir:n ii, an,vi' r r, r-.,i(ici i i._rl it ;i , i tali.en rjn CrCer
- *---+-" - -
                 i
                 I
                 I                     i-:-i
                                          --,.-.,.                                    *----*-^t---*
                i
                 I
                                       1r
                                      -+---



,'l place its casc. He further submitted that tl:c chcqrirr ir:rr ri ,l lt I I ir 1i ifrrl been sent to the drawee bank bud tt,e pcrson who issr,ir:;r r!cheque I has stopecl payment. The;i 'dre oniy tc rcturn iiri-:
cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-. As such t{ey trave no delicicncy in i I .{ service. He submitted tha1, if op$ortrinilr, is given, i.iicy. { 1 would submit all the meteriais.

7. Considered thc submissions f thc ,- i,l behalf of appellant, perused the DF zind

8. It appears that the O.P is set parte ani thc: DFit il ()'r.) ';

\ not show about the sen,ice o1' tice 0n ,:,;.P. lrr (. r! ;

circumstances, rvve are of view t I1t O.P '"i'as lrtt .,:, ,'i opportunity of being heard. So rithout expi'essing alr.y, opinion on merit of the case we h by remand the mattci il, the District Commission with a 'ection to allow O.P li.,i appearance and tile written version ithin period of 30 ca,,:

from the date of receipt of tliis ord Itttd hcai' boih oai l,r:,, t oGp-l\!F*CTCp (FS&i:w) 2-1,00,000*29-6-2020 I 'p-
Sl. No" Date of of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Office note as to action (if any), Order taken on Order accordance with law and dis of case tn accoruli,ncc with law within 30 days from th datr: of filing of writtcri version.

9. Both partics are directed appear before Learcnd District Contmission on 27-0 -2023 ro rakc ltrltircr' instruction.The case is disposcC cr accorciingli,. No. t:ost.

Free copy of the order be pplied to the r.cspr:ctir,,; parties or they may download e from the confonet or website of this Commission to same as i{'ccpy o:i orrl,:i received from this commission.

DFR be scnt back fbrthwith.

\, y0 (Dr.D.P.Choudhu ,J) (President (Dr. P.K. prff (Mernber) finn a;

(Miss S.L pattnai (Membe D.F& C.rae (*W V14**