Jharkhand

StateCommission

A/92/2015

Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Md. Danish Mumtaj - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Praveen Jaiswal

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RANCHI
FINAL ORDER
 
First Appeal No. A/92/2015
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/02/2015 in Case No. CC/173/2013 of District Ranchi)
 
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
RMCC Branch, Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Ranchi-834009
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Md. Danish Mumtaj
R/o Village- Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Ranchi-834009
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia PRESIDENT
 
For the Appellant:
Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, Advocate
 
For the Respondent:
ORDER

02-09-2015 – Heard Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on limitation and admission matter. As prayed, he is permitted to make correction in the date on page 1 of the memo of appeal.

  1. This appeal has been filed with a petition for condoning the delay of about 15 days in filing this appeal.
  1. On merit, Mr. Jaiswal submitted that on the basis of the certificate/ letter dated 11.3.2013 issued by the appellant-Bank, the learned District Forum held that the Bank committed deficiency in service by not returning the original certificates of the respondent- complainant. He further submitted that the complainant claimed to have deposited the certificates in the Bank and therefore on his request the said certificate dated 11.3.2013 was issued to enable him to obtain duplicate certificates. He further submitted that loan was taken in the year 2006 but up to the year 2013, the complaint never claimed the said certificates.
  2. In our opinion, there is nothing to show that the Bank denied that the said original certificates were not deposited with the Bank rather the Bank said that they were not traceable at the branch. Further admittedly the loan account was settled in 2013. Therefore, the complainant asked for returning his original certificates, thereafter.
  1. In these circumstances, even if, the delay of about 15 days in filing this appeal is ignored, in our opinion no grounds, are made out for interference with the impugned order by which the appellant has been directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within 60 days of the order, failing which, the complainant was entitled to recover the said amount with penal interest @ 12% from the date of the order, till realization, along with Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mrs. Sumedha Tripathi.  After the order was dictated with her consent, she informed that she would be absent for her treatment, and she is not sure when she will be available. Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.

                Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

          Ranchi,

          Dated:- 02-09-2015

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia]
PRESIDENT

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.