Delhi

StateCommission

FA/442/2014

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. R.K. SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:09.11.2016

First Appeal No.442/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 538/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumVI, ‘M’ Block 1^st Floor, VikasBhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

Indian Overseas Bank

Having its Central Office

at Chennai and Branch

atPankaj Plaza Corner,

Near Prince Apartment

I.P.Extn. Delhi-110092                            .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sh. R.K.Sharma

A/4 Oriental Enclave

Plot No. 32

IndraprasthaExtn.

Delhi-110092                                         ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI VikasBhawan New Delhi-110001. Vide impugned orders, Ld. District Forum awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.
2.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that admittedly the complainant Sh. R.K.Sharma was having a saving bank account with Indian Overseas Bank Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (in short the ‘OP-1’). The respondent/complainant deposited a cheque for an amount of Rs. 24,692/- in his saving bank account with PatparganjDelhi Branch of Indian Overseas Bank (in short the OP-2) on 03.04.2012.  Cheque was not credited to the account of the complainant. It was also not returned to him. On 12.04.2012 respondent/complainant approached OP-2 and made a complaint in writing. With the intervention of the office of the OP-2 the cheque was cleared only on 16.04.2012. Since the complainant was in dire need of money, he had to encash his FDR lying with OP-1. This resulted into financial loss of Rs. 2637/- as FDR was encashed before the date of maturity.
3.         Complainant field a complaint in the District Forum seeking payment of the amount of Rs. 2637/- as loss suffered by him and an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation.
4.         Defence raised by the OP is that the pay-in-slip did not bear the account number and the name of the complainant.  It also did not bear telephone number or address of the complainant. Contention of the OP is that it collected and transferred the amount on the next date when account number and name of the complainant were given on the pay-in-slip. The relevant portion of the written version of the OPs (para 4) is reproduced below:

“It is submitted that the opposite parties collected and transferred the amount as soon as i.e next day when they get the account No. and name on the pay-in-slip by the complainant.”

 

5.         Present appeal has been filed on the grounds inter-alia that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that pay-in-slip belonged to Tolstoy Marg Branch (OP-1) and not I.P.Extn. Branch (OP-2). It made the job of the appellant/OP difficult to send the cheque for clearance.
6.         In its appeal, the appellant/OP took a stand that it got the name and account number of the respondent/complainant filled-up in the pay-in-slip only on 12.04.2012 when complainant visited the I.P.Extn. Branch. On the contrary, in para 4 of its written version filed in the District Forum appellant/OPs took a stand that they collected and transferred the amount on the next day i.e. 04.04.2012 when they received the account number and name on the pay-in-slip. In other words, at on place appellant wants this Commission to believe that the complainant provided the necessary particulars only on 15.04.2012. Whereas at another place he contends that he got the complete information on 04.04.2012. There is thus a great contradiction in the stands taken by the appellant.
7.         Appellant raised a plea that its job of transfer of money became difficult as the pay-in-slip belonged to its Tolstoy MargBranch and not I.P.Extn. Branch. No such plea was raised by the appellant/OP in the written version filed by it in the District Forum. Be that as it may, the appellant could have directed its Tolstoy Branch to find out the relevant information. Complainant disclosed in his affidavit towards evidence that the account number was written not only on the front side of the pay-in-slip but also on the reverse side. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant bank obtained the relevant information from the complainant on 12.04.2012, no signatures or initials of the complainant were obtained on the alteration/addition, if any, made in the pay-in-slip on 12.04.2012. For these reasons, I am, of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed.
8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

​