Kerala

Trissur

CC/10/234

Komalkrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

ADV.JeckoJoy

06 Dec 2012

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/234
 
1. Komalkrishnan
S/o Balakrishnan Ezhuthssan Kaithassery House, Enkakkad, Wadakkanchery.
Thrissur
Kerala
2. Savithri Krishnan
W/o K.KomalKrishnan, Kaithassery House, Enkakkad, Wadakkanchery.
Thrissur
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. State Bank of India
Dharmodayam Building, Round east, Thrissur, Represented by its Chief Manager
Thrissur
Kerala
2. The State Bank Of India
Regional Office, East Fort, Thrissur, Rep. by its Regional Manager
Thrissur
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S Member
 
PRESENT:ADV.JeckoJoy, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
ORDER

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
          The case is that on 8.2.10 the complainants had applied for two demand drafts, one for Rs.30,000/- and the other for Rs.25,140/- from first respondent in favour of Divisional Finance Manager, Thiruvananthapuram. The DDs were to be submitted along with the quotation for the tender called by the railway authorities for the sanitation of Thrissur Railway Station. The complainants had remitted the above said amount with the bank along with the commission expenses. The 1st respondent issued one DD for Rs.30,000/- but the other for Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.25,140/-. So the quotation was rejected. If the DD amount was same as mentioned by the complainants in their application their quotation could have been accepted. On 19.3.10 the complainants issued a lawyer notice and the respondents replied for the notice stating false and flimsy grounds. Hence the complaint.
 
          2. The respondents remained exparte.
 
          3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 series documents were marked.
 
          4. The complaint is filed to get compensation from the respondents for the alleged deficient act of the respondents. The respondents issued demand draft for Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.25,140/-. It is the case that the complainants applied for two demand drafts of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,140/-. But the 1st respondent issued demand draft for Rs.30,000/- correctly and the other for Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.25,140/-. The complainants would say that this caused rejection of quotation by the authorities since they wanted to submit the demand drafts for the quotation of railway. Ext. P2 would show that the 1st respondent issued D.D. for Rs.25,000/-. This is a deficiency in service on the part of 1st respondent.
 
          5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
                   
          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 6th day of December 2012.
 
 
[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.