Delhi

New Delhi

CC/142/2009

Anand Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2014

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/142/09                       Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. ANAND JAIN

S/O. LATE SH. JAI PRAKASH JAIN

R/O.1939, GALI NO.2, KAILASH NAGAR

FIRST FLOOR, NEW DELHI-110031.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

1.     HONG KONG & SHANGHAI

BANKING CORPN. LTD.

25, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

CONNAUGHT PLACE

NEW DELHI- 110 001.

 

        ALSO AT :

        52/60, M.G. ROAD

        MUMBAI 0 400001.

 

2.     MANAGING DIRECTOR

        HONG KONG & SHANGHAI

BANKING CORPN. LTD.

        52/60, M.G. ROAD

        MUMBAI – 400001.

 ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

       

 

ORDER  [ ORAL]

Date of Arguments :13.5.2014

President :  C.K. Chaturvedi

 

Present: Counsels for both parties.

 

We have heard the arguments and perused the complaint, reply, evidences of parties, documents on record and submissions made.

The short case of the complainant is that he had account in the ICICI Bank Ltd. and also having credit card No.4476929971594392 of ICICI Bank.  It is alleged that one day he received a cashier’s cheque bearing no.167129 of Rs.20,000/- dt.26.5.2008  of OP Bank which was addressed in the name of ICICI Bank and on getting the cheque he immediately protested and submitted to the OP Bank that he never demanded the same and same be reversed and he returned the said cheque to the OP Bank and OP bank agreed to reverse the cheque amount as well as charges.  The said cheque was got cancelled by the bank on 13.6.2008 and confirmation was given vide letter dt.24.7.2008.   

The OP in reply stated that complainant applied for transfer of funds which was done but he returned the cheque issued, and he was liable for transfer charges. The OP produced original application form, which belies the case of complainant that he never applied for transfer. OP also in reply mentioned about complainant insurance policy applied by him, which he returned and only due charges in the first statement of account were reflected, which he did not pay and filed this case. But the complainant is silent on insurance policy matter. The application for insurance and request for balance transfer are there, which bear his signatures. This signature proves the same. In our view, no deficiency appeared to be committed by OP1 and therefore complaint is dismissed.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 13.05.2014.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)         (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                          MEMBER