STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS
PORT BLAIR
Appeal Case No. 3 of 2006
The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Port Blair. Appellant
vs
1. Shri Chittu Singh,
S/o Shri Gurubachan Singh,
Prop.Unitex Enterprise,
Port Blair.
2. Shri Javed Ahmed Bhat,
Proprietor,
National AIR Emporium,
Atlanta Point, Port Blair Respondant
PRESENT :-
1. Justice S.N Bhattacharjee, President, State Commission.
2. Smti. Vijay Laxmi,Member, State Commission.
Date : 19/1/2007
Judgement
1. Appeal case No.3 of 2006 has been heard analogously with APPEAL case No.5 of 2006.
2. At the time of hearing the Appellant in appeal case No.3 of 2006 brought our attention to the fact that although a sum of 27,000 and odd was recovered by the bank from the current account of the Respondent at a time depriving the Respondent of the facility of advance already granted to the respondent. In all Rs.35,000/- was instalment of Rs.1,500/-.
3. The Respondent repaid the amount in instalment regularly but the Bank withdrew the benefit as the surety declined to act as a guarantor any more. The Respondent being a victim of Tsunami required the amount of Rs35,000 for running his business.So he field a case through the Consumer Forum under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act,1986 for relief against the bank.The case was allowed by the order of theDistrict Forum and the appeal has been preferred.At the time of hearing both the parties submit that pursuant to a circular of the Govt.of India dated 30/3/2006 Rs.30,000/- has been paid back by the Appellant bank to the Respondent.So the appellant has no further grievance against the Respondent.The Ld.lawyer for the Appellant prays for disposing of the Appeal. The Respondent herein prays for enhancement of the cost amount of Rs.3,000/- granted by the Forum below.According to the Respondent this amount is too low in comparison to what was paid for.No evidences has been adduced before the Forum below justifying the amount of compensation prayed for the Complainant therein. The Forum below granted Rs 3,000 as compensation cost.
4.As.no evidence was adduced and the benefit was granted by considering circumstance by the Forum below. In view of the fact that the Govt. Already granted sum of Rs. 30,000 to the Tsunami victims and the said amount has been paid to the Appellant of Appeal case No.5.We do not want to interfere with the amount of compensation already granted by the Forum below. So the appeal No.5. of 2006 is also dismissed. The appeal No.3. of 2006 is allowed as the part of the order passed by the Forum below dated 6/11.2006 has become abortive. The second part of the order granting Rs.3,000/- compensation to the enhance the same. Both the Appeal are disposed of accordingly. It is order that the Appellant Ban will pay Rs.3,000/- to the respondent consumer within three weeks from the date failing which the order will be executable.
