NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1932/2005

PANDA METALS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV BHASIN & M.P.SINGH

11 Aug 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 18 Jul 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1932/2005
(Against the Order dated 18/03/2005 in Appeal No. 648/2003 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. PANDA METALS650 SARAFA WARD SUNRHAI JABALPUR JABALPUR ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.MILONIGANJ JABALPUR JABALPUR ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr. AVtar Singh,adv. for RAJIV BHASIN & M.P.SINGH, Advocate
For the Respondent :Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, and Mr. Anant Kumar, adv. for -, Advocate

Dated : 11 Aug 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Complainant was the petitioner before the District Forum.

          Dispute in this case is about two Demand Drafts purchased by the petitioner from the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Miloniganj, Jabalpur (M.P.) - respondent No.1 drawn on Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Service Branch, New Delhi – Respondent No.2 and payable to Respondent No.3, i.e., Nisha Traders.  Case of the complainant was that the said drafts were lost in transit and despite his due intimation to Respondent No.1, the amount was wrongly paid by Respondent No.2 in favour of M/s.Kanika Enterprises – Respondent No.5 on the endorsement made by Respondent No.3.

          District Forum came to the conclusion that, as disputed questions of fact were involved, which required elaborate evidence, the complaint was not maintainable before the consumer fora, leaving the petitioner to seek remedy under general law by approaching the Civil Court.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the District Forum.  It has been held that since the allegations made in the complaint involved disputed questions of fact, which required elaborate evidence, the dispute could not be decided in summary manner by the consumer fora.  It was further mentioned that neither Respondent No.3 nor Respondent No.5 had appeared before the forum below to explain the position.  Respondent No.3 did not press its claim for payment of money due under the said two drafts from the petitioner. 

          We agree with the view taken by the foras below that the complaint involved disputed questions of fact, which could not be decided in summary manner.  Reference may be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel – 2006 CTJ 1073 (Supreme Court)(CP) wherein it has been held that such disputed questions cannot be decided by the consumer fora as they have to dispose of the cases in summary manner.

          Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER