Suresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Madho Ram R/o House No.3011-A, Sector 52 (LIG Flats),Chandigarh.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.State Bank ofIndia, SCO 2915-16, Sector 22-C,Chandigarh, through Chief Manager.

2.State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, SCO 103-110, 1^st

3.SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 109-110, Sector 17-B,Chandigarh, through Branch Manager.

4.State Bank ofIndia,RampurRampur, Shimla, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh-172001, through Branch Manager.

5.Chief General Manager, State Bank ofIndia, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B,Chandigarh

....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

Sh. Sumeer Bector, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2,4 & 5.

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.           IndiaIndia. The Manager of Opposite Party No.1, opened another loan account of the complainant, for Rs.2,18,300/-.

3.            

4.                   It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 deducted Rs.28,816/- from the account of the complainant, and paid the same to the State Bank of India Life Insurance Loan Account, which was illegally opened, without his consent. It was further stated that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.28,816/- (Annexure C-11). A legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, which was replied to only by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. theState Bank of India Life Insurance Company, wherein, it was stated that it had done the insurance on the asking of the State Bank of India, Rampur Branch, and the said Branch had been made Master Policy Holder. It was further stated that the complainant was unaware of this fact, as he had neither opened any account, with the Rampur Branch, nor even visited it. Still the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount of Rs.1,38,435/- and Rs.28,816/- illegally retained and deducted by them. It was further stated that

5.           

6.            the Insurance Cover was purely optional and the complainant had opted for the same. It was further stated that the said Policy was dispatched to the Master Policy Holder i.e. Opposite Party No.1 on 15.04.2011. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party, had received a letter dated 21.06.2012 from the State Bank ofIndia

7.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.           

9.           Accordingly, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order.

10.        

11.         

12.        India 

13.        

14.           complainant,In

“This submission also requires to be rejected because

conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach theCivil Court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, long-drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers, and that should not be curtailed, on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done, when some questions of fact are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards”.

15.        

“It cannot be denied that Foras at the National Level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. These Foras have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts.

achieved by establishing such Foras is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure, which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because reading of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved”.

16.        

17.        

18.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 14.11.2013 at10.30 A.M.

19.        10.30 A.M.

20.        

21.        

Pronounced.

November 7, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Gp