Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/05/870

M/s. Bakshi Engineering Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Pradip B. Dakve

19 Dec 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/05/870
(Arisen out of Order Dated 08/04/2005 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/03/54 of District Satara)
 
1. M/s. Bakshi Engineering Enterprises
Through their Partners, Add. 1006-D, Shaniwar Peth, Satara.
Satara
Maharashtra
2. Shri. Arun Yashwant Bakshi
R/o. 205, Vyankatpura Peth, Satara, Tal. & Dist. Satara.
Satara
Maharashtra
3. Shri. Girish Yashwant Bakshi
R/o. B-22, Aniket Apartment, Bunder Road, Ratnagiri, Tal. & Dist. Ratnagiri.
Ratnagiri
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. State Bank Of India
Branch Manager, Pratapganj Peth, Satara, Tal. & Dist. Satara.
Satara
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Pradip B. Dakve, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
None for the Respondent.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Judicial Member:

 

 

(1)                This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 08.04.2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No.54/2003, M/s.Bakshi Engineering Enterprises & Ors. V/s.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,  by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (‘the Forum’ in short).

 

(2)                Complainant had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service in respect of non-supply of certain documents which relates to the cash credit loan account of the Complainant No.1 – M/s.Bakshi Engineering Enterprises for the period from 1972 to 2002.  It is the contention of the Bank that those documents were already filed and supplied in a Special Civil Suit No.63/1973 between the parties and therefore, there is no question again to supply them and as such no deficiency in service could be alleged on that count.  The Forum upheld the contentions of the Bank and dismissed the complaint with costs.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, the original Complainant has filed this appeal.

 

(3)                Heard Advocate Mr.Dakve, for the Appellant.

 

(4)                In the instant case when it is brought to the notice of the Complainant that those documents were part and partial of the suit which admittedly was pending between the parties, there arise no question to supply such documents.  Complainant did not show that there is legal obligation on the Bank to supply those documents apart from one which were already filed in the Civil Suit.  Thirdly, if at all there is deficiency in service as alleged by Appellant/Complainant, it is from the Bank viz. the State Bank of India.  Said Bank is not a party.  Its Branch Manager, is a separate distinct and independent legal entity than the Bank itself in view of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For all these reasons, ultimate dismissal of the consumer complaint cannot be faulted with.   We find no merit in the appeal.  Hence, we pass the following order:

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

    (i)               Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.

 

  (ii)               No order as to costs.

 

(iii)               Inform the parties accordingly.

 

 

Pronounced on 19th December, 2011.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
Judicial Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
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.