Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/145

SMT USHA ANNARAO KANAPURE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, SOLAPUR SIDDHESHWAR CO-OP BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

R C KONAPUR E

28 Jul 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/145
(Arisen out of Order Dated 09/12/2009 in Case No. 442/2009 of District Solapur)
1. SMT USHA ANNARAO KANAPURE R/O MAHALAXMI NAGARVIJAPUR ROAD SOLAPUR SOLAPUR Maharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. MANAGER, SOLAPUR SIDDHESHWAR CO-OP BANK LTDMANGALWAR PETH 205 EAST MANGALWAR PETH SOLAPUR SOLAPUR Maharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENTHon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial MemberHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :P B Shende, Advocate for the Respondent 0

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.

ORDER

 

Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

Heard Mr.P.B.Shende-Advocate for the respondent.  Advocate of appellant is absent.  No one reports the difficulty of the advocate and/or the appellant in not attending the State Commission today.

Under the circumstances, we are proceeding to consider the submissions of Ld.counsel for the respondent.

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 09/12/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.442/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Solapur.  By the said order complaint filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed.  Therefore, appellant is original complainant, while respondents are original opponents.  Admitted facts are as follows:-

That the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- was kept with the opponents by 8 different fixed deposit receipts during the period 03/4/2002 to 22/12/2006, so also in the Saving account no.2571 there was an amount of Rs.25,612/-.  The said amounts were not paid to the complainant.  Therefore, complainant has filed the complaint. 

It transpired that the complainant’s son Ravindra is a clerk in Collector office, Solapur and against him an offence has been registered under section 409 & 465 for misappropriating funds of the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana and the Collector therefore has requisitioned the amount which was standing in the name of the complainant. 

It further appears that the Police inspector, Anti Corruption department has also requisitioned the amount and, therefore, these amounts are transferred by the bank to the concerned Anti Corruption department.  Therefore, it is not a case of non payment or deficiency in service.  Bank has acted in consonance with the directions given by Government officers namely Collector and Anti Corruption Bureau and, therefore, complaint was dismissed.  In view of this admitted position and the orders which were considered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , we do not wish to interfere with the impugned order.  There is no merit in appeal and, therefore, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

Appeal stands rejected.

No order as to costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 28 July 2010

[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]PRESIDENT[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]Judicial Member[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]Member