Bihar

Jehanabad

CC/54/2024

Pankaj Kuimar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumit Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2024

ORDER

Complainant physically present.

OP no-1 and 2 represented.

 Heard the complainant in person and learned advocate for the parties. It is an admitted fact of the parties that of deficiency in service from the part of the OPs the OP no-1 has franchise of the Bank through CSP.

And a sum of Rs.25000 awarded by RBI that is Banking ombudsman.

A part from allegation of not depositing of the amount handed over by the complainant to the OP no-1 crediting in his account at Indian Bank he has incourse of hearing prayed for compensation for death of his mother who was under treatment which could not be provided on account of lack of sufficient amount in the complainant’s Bank account through the complaint. The complainant has prayed for compensation for death of the mother. As such firstly relief beyond the prayer cannot granted and number 2 even if assertion of complainant is appreciated no compensation can be awarded to the complainant for the consequently loss by the commission under section 39 of CP Act only the actual loss can be granted. Since, the compensation has already been granted by RBI ombudsman no further compensation can be granted by this commission twice on account of Principle of double.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

 Hence, finding the present complaint without any statutory  merit is dismissed.