Delhi

New Delhi

CC/971/2014

Ram Krishan Kamal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.971/2014                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

              Ramkrishan Kamal,

              S/o Late Sh. B Prasad Kamal,

              85A, Pocket F, MIG Flats,

             GTB Enclave, Delhi-110095.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA ,

Through its Branch Manager,

Seemapuri, New Delhi-95.

 

Also at:

 

11, Sansad Marg,

Through its General Manager,

             New Delhi-110001.

 

2.   STATE BANK OF INDIA ,

Through its Branch Manager,

Hardwar, Uttrakhand.

                        Opposite Parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant wants to purchase a flat in Hardwar, therefore, he contacted to Smt. Shanti Dayal Sharma, Prop. of M/s Bhole Associates, Hardwar.  Smt Shanti Dayal Sharma was interested to sell their flat bearing No.UG F 30 in Hardwar to him,  hence the cost of the said flat was settled as Rs.15,00,000/-.  An agreement dt. 7.5.2013 was executed between both the parties and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the flat owner as earnest money.   According to agreement rest   payment has to be made by the complainant on or before 8.8.2014.   The complainant erected the DD bearing No.327696268 dt. 30.7.2013 in favour of M/s Bhole Associates from   OP-1.  The same(D.D.) was handed over to the flat owner by the complainant but OP-2 returned the same due to absence of HOLOGRAM,  OP-2 also wrote a letter to the complainant.   Thereafter, vide letter dt. 16.11.2013 and 5.5.2014, OP-1 admitted their mistake/ error and deficiency in services, due to deficiency of service of OPs, complainant failed to purchase the above flat and also suffered the financial loss, complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2. Complaint has been contested by OPs.  OPs filed its written statement and stated that the complainant is an ex-employee of SBI and retired from Seemapuri Branch, Delhi on 31.5.2013.  It is submitted that OP bank charged the exchange charged @ Rs.3/-per thousand from its customers for making of D.D. and in general the exchange charges of Rs.3900/- would have been charged from the complainant for making D.D. of Rs.13 lac but in the present case no exchange charges were charged by OP-1 from the complainant for issuance of D.D. bearing No.696268 of Rs.13 lacs dt.30.7.2013 on behalf of complainant in favour of M/s Bhole Associates  as the complainant was ex-official of the SBI.  Therefore, it is clear that no consideration was charged  from the complainant for issuance of the above DD, hence the complainant is not a consumer of Ops within the Sec. 2 (1) (d) (i) of C.P.Act, 1986, hence the complaint be dismissed on this ground alone.  It is submitted that there no deficiency of service on the part of OPs in terms of Section 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     It is admitted on behalf of OP vide  letter dated 19.8.2013 that the draft in question was not paid as the HOLOGRAM  was not affixed on the D.D. This admission on behalf of OPs itself proved that the DD in question was not honoured due to negligence of the employee of the OPs by not affixing the required HOLOGRAM on the D.D. The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that due to deficiency in services by OPs he failed to purchase the property and suffered the monetary loss of Rs. 2 lacs as earnest money and Rs.25,000/- against the transportation charges from Delhi to Haridwar.  However, he failed to place on record any document in support of its contention.  Admittedly, there was the dishonour of the D.D. in question, due to deficiency in services on behalf of OPs, hence in such a circumstances, we hold OPs guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

6.     Pay to the complainant for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation which will include the cost of litigation.

 

        The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 28/11/2019.

                                                              

                                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                    PRESIDENT

  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                       MEMBER                                                       MEMBER