Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/447/2018

Indian Overseas Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Praveen Shyam S/o Shri Shiv Charan Sethi - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Soni

08 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 235 /2018

 

Praveen Shyam Sethi s/o Shivcharan Sethi r/o 121 Kachhwala House, 1^st floor, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Near Purani Chungi, Jaipur.

Vs.

ICICI Bank Ltd. C-99 Shrijee Tower, Subhash Marg, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 447 /2018

 

Indian Overseas Bank, C-Block, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its Br.Manager.

Vs.

Praveen Shyam Sethi s/o Shivcharan Sethi r/o 121 Kachhwala House, 1^st floor, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Near Purani Chungi, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of order 8.1.2019

 

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta- Member

 

Mr. Pramod Kumar counsel for the complainant Praveen Shyam Sethi

Mr. Mitesh Sharma counsel for ICICI Bank

None present for Indian Overseas Bank

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are preferred against the single order hence, are decided by this common order

 

The contention of the complainant is that compensation be enhanced.

 

Per contra the contention of the ICICI Bank is that no deficiency has been committed by him.

 

Appeal has been filed by Indian Overseas Bank but none

3

 

appeared on behalf of Indian Overseas Bank inspite of service.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The facts are not in dispute that complainant issued a cheque in favour of Vipin Sharma which was sent by ICICI Bank for collection to Indian Overseas Bank. It was remained unpaid due to technical error. Thereafter complainant paid the amount to Vipin Sharma but on 23.2.2016 the Indian Overseas Bank on the basis of image of the cheque has withdrawn the amount and the Forum below has rightly held Indian Overseas bank deficient. Even in the appeal this fact has been admitted that due to bonafide mistake cheque was cleared.

 

The contention of the complainant is that compensation be enhanced but facts of the case clearly shows that amount was paid to Vipin Sharma and debited amount of Rs.1,00,001/- was also credited in the bank account of the complainant. Hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed interest on the intervening period and compensation. There is no ground to enhance the compensation.

4

 

The contention of the Indian Overseas Bank is that he is not deficient as the cheque was folded and mutilated and could not be cleared and amount has already been paid to Vipin Sharma. Hence, question of deficiency does not arise and complainant is not a 'consumer'. When cheque has not been cleared by Indian Overseas Bank in first instance and thereafter inspite of payment to Vipin Sharma again money has been debited only on the basis of image of cheque it is deficiency on the part of the Indian Overseas Bank and the Forum below has rightly held so.

 

The other contention which has been raised in the appeal is that complainant is not a 'consumer' but counsel for the consumer has rightly relied upon IV (2006) CPJ 274 (NC) P.S.Sawhney Vs. Canara Bank and II (2006) CPJ 194 (NC) Major Rajendran Gopalan Vs. State Bank of India where the National Commission has held that petitioner is beneficiary of service as cheque was issued by him hence, he is a 'consumer'. In view of the above this contention is not acceptable.

 

The other contention of the Indian Overseas Bank is that Vipin Sharma is necessary party but cheque was issued by the

5

 

complainant, money has already been paid to Vipin Sharma and for consideration of the issue presence of Vipin Sharma was not necessary. In view of the above the contention is not sustainable.

 

In view of the above, both appeals are dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President

 

 

nm