IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:12.09.2014

First Appeal- 116/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 26.08.2011 passed in Complainant Case No. 676/10 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi)

Citibank N.A.,

124, Jeevan Bharti Building,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-1.

                                                                                            ….Appellant

Versus

Mr. Anuj Mishra,

D-47 B, Vishwakarma Colony,

M.B. Road, Tughlakabad,

New Delhi-110044.

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member Judicial

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.                Arguments heard.          

2.                Ld Counsel for the appellant Ms Urvika Suri, Advocate states that appellant has no grievance as regards directions are there in the impugned order about return of cheque amount with 18% interest to the respondent.  It is submitted that the only grievance of appellant is about the compensation granted by the Ld. District Forum.  It is submitted that the same is on higher side.

3.                The allegations against the appellant bank are that the  demand draft of Rs. 15204.03 issued by it in favour of the respondent was not cleared when the J&K Bank had presented the same to the appellant bank for realization.  According to the appellant bank, original bank draft was not sent by J&K Bank due to which it was not cleared.  However, due to bonafide mistake, the appellant bank shown its status as liquidated.  It is stated that the original demand draft was returned by J&K Bank to the respondent. It is submitted that when respondent had presented the same to the appellant bank for revalidation, the appellant bank did not revalidate it as its status was shown as liquidated.  However, when mistake was realized, appellant bank offered to return the principal amount with 9% interest to the respondent.  The respondent did not accept the same and filed a complaint before the District Forum wherein impugned order has been passed.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant issued the demand draft to respondent on 28.2.08 whereas the respondent had deposited with his banker, J.K. Bank after keeping the same for more than 5½ months.  It is further submitted that immediately on realising the mistake, the appellant offered to make payment with interest of 9% but the respondent refused.  It is submitted that in these circumstances, compensation awarded is on higher side.           

5.                The respondent has argued that compensation awarded is reasonable and proper.

6.                Considering the nature of allegations and considering that the District Forum has also ordered for refund of the principal amount with 18% of interest from the date of deposit in J&K Bank, the compensation of Rs. 1 lac as awarded by the District Forum is on higher side.  The same is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-.

7.                The impugned order is therefore upheld with the modification in the compensation amount i.e. compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 50,000/-.  The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

8.                FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.

9.                     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.