Delhi

North East

CC/296/2017

Talat Arif - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.296/17

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Mrs. Talat Arif W/o Arif Hasan Khan R/o House No. C-88, LIG Flats, Loni GCL Chakkar,Shahdara, Delhi-110093		Complainant
	Versus
	Central Bank of India Branch Office At:- D-58, Brahampuri, New Seelampur, Delhi-110053   Central Bank of India Branch Office At:- Main Road, Near Ghonda Chowk, Near New Seelampur Delhi-110053	Opposite Party No.1                       Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

03.10.17 09.11.22 15.02.2

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

                                                                    ORDER

            Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having a bank account in Opposite Party No.1 bank having no. 00000003052024826 and Complainant is issued a cheque book having 20 leaves from 45741 to 45760. The Opposite Party or other bank issue one cheque book at a time issued by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of Complainant in 2013 and Complainant used cheques from 45741 to 45746. On 22.12.15 Complainant received sms on her mobile for withdrawal of Rs. 60,000/- from her account through cheque no. 045727. The Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 bank on 23.12.15 and complained to manager about the transaction in her account. The Complainant stated the manager to enquire about the cheque in question which was never received by Complainant nor issued/ signed by her. The manager of Opposite Party bank requested to grant 2-3 days time. The Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.1 and came to know that the said transaction was done by a woman named Razia from other branch. The Complainant strongly protested to manager of Opposite Party No.1 bank and requested to take appropriate steps against employee who had issued cheque in question to unknown person and Complainant reiterated that cheque in question was never received by Complainant from Opposite Party No.1 bank. The Complainant stated that on 29.12.15 she lodged police complaint with SHO, Police Station, Jafrabad, Delhi vide DD No. 40B, Complainant also register written complaint to manager of Opposite Party No.1 bank on 02.01.16. The Complainant enquired from manager of Opposite Party No.1 but he did not give a satisfactory reply from Opposite Party No.1. The branch manager of Opposite Party No.1 simply told Complainant that transaction in question has taken place in Opposite Party No.2 branch and only that branch is liable to pay the Complainant. The Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 branch and asked to give information but manager told that he will not share information with Complainant and assured him that he will provide information to police or Opposite Party No. 1 branch. The Complainant submitted that he lodged another complaint with DCP east dated 19.01.16 which was duly received by office on 21.01.16. The Complainant again approached Police Station, Jafrabad and it was told by police that investigation was carried out but no FIR was registered till date by the police. The Complainant submitted that she got the copy of cheque in question from IO after so many requests and submitted that signature does not bear to her and she had never visited Opposite Party No.2 bank. The Complainant had also mentioned judgement titled as Uma Shankar Bhatt vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank (Opposite Party No. 98 of 2002) and Canara Bank vs. Canara Sales Corporation & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 666 (Para 24) to support its contention. The Complainant also served a lega notice to Opposite Party on 07.02.17 and Opposite Party bank replied to Complainant on 10.03.17. The Opposite Party bank did not take any action and the Opposite Party bank does not refunded the amount in question to the Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. She has prayed to refund the amount in question. She has also prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 08.04.22.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file as well as written arguments filed by the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by her affidavit and documents filed by her. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the amount in question i.e. Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 15.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President