Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/264/2023

SH. HARDiP KUMAR DHIMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND THROUGH ITS COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT SH. VISHAL - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	264 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	03.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	31.01.2024

 

 

 

 

Sh. Hardip Kumar Dhiman, H.No.592C, Sector 46A, U.T., Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant..

Versus

State Bank of India, 3 Base Repair Depot, Air Force, Chandigarh – 160003 through its Branch Manager.

...Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Hardip Kumar Dhiman, appellant in person.

Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                    This appeal has been filed by the complainant Sh. Hardip Kumar Dhiman for enhancement of compensation awarded by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide order dated 10.08.2023. The District Commission has directed the opposite party – State Bank of India (respondent herein) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the appellant for causing mental agony and harassment to him, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the awarded amount shall attract interest @12% per annum form the date of the order till realization. The enhancement has been sought by the appellant on the ground that firstly, the penal deduction of Rs.590/- for “unintended dishonor of cheque” by the respondent – Bank was contrary to E-Circular dated 07.09.2017 and secondly, despite holding by the District Commission that the respondent – Bank illegally transferred only Rs.9,080/- by way of NEFT in place of Rs.90,801/- as requested by the appellant, awarded meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced.

2]                On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent argued that the District Commission rightly observed in its order that Rs.590/- was rightly recovered from the appellant as when the cheque was presented by him in the respondent – Bank, there was not sufficient balance in the account of the appellant. However, the Counsel accepted the mistake of the respondent – Bank in transferring Rs.9,080/- only against the requested amount of Rs.90,801/- and argued that for this deficiency in service, the District Commission has adequately compensated the appellant by awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,000/-. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

3]                After hearing the appellant and the Counsel for the respondent and going through the material available on record and the written arguments filed by the respondent – bank, we are of the view that the District Commission has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant that there were sufficient funds in his Account on the date, the cheque in question was presented by him. We have also cautiously gone through the Statement of Account, Annexure R-3, placed on record by the respondent – Bank before the District Commission, which establishes that on the date, when the cheque in question was presented by the appellant for realization, there were not sufficient funds in his accounts and thus, the respondent – Bank rightly charged Rs.590/- as dishonor charges. Therefore, this limb of argument raised by the appellant has no substance.

4]                So far as the second limb of argument made by the appellant that the compensation awarded by the District Commission, for deficiency in service with regard to transferring an amount of Rs.9,080/- only instead of Rs.90,801/-, is on the lower side, it may be stated here that in Para 3 of its reply, the respondent-Bank had admitted its error in wrongly transferring Rs.9,080/- and for this deficiency, the District Commission has rightly held the respondent-Bank liable to compensate the appellant/complainant. In our concerted view, the mental agony and harassment suffered by the appellant/complainant due to this deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Bank, has adequately been taken care of by the District Commission by awarding lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant, which seemed to be just and adequate. Therefore, the appellant/complainant has failed to make out any case for enhancement.

5]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

6]                Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

7]                File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

31.01.2024.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad