Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/03/658

VIJAYKUMAR SHAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

-

06 Jul 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/03/658
(Arisen out of Order Dated 31/03/2003 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/00/129 of District Mumbai)
 
1. VIJAYKUMAR SHAH
5 H/292, BHANU JYOTI, L.N. ROAD, MATUNGA, MUMBAI - 400 019
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK
WORLI BRANCH, DR. A.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:None present.
 
ORDER

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

 

(1)                This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31.03.2003 passed in Consumer Complaint no.129/2000, Vijaykumar Shah V/s. The Manager, Canara Bank, by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District, Mumbai.   By the impugned order the complaint stood dismissed except for the claim of `12/- and feeling aggrieved thereby original Complainant preferred this appeal.

 

(2)                Consumer complaint pertains to allegedly debiting service charges in the account of the Complainant for return of the cheque.  The facts as stated further show that the Bank returned the cheque to make enquiry as to whether there was sufficient fund to honour the cheque and subject to clarification, asked the Complainant to represent the cheque for encashment with the Bank.  For the service rendered, they debited certain charges. The action whereby the charges were debited, certainly, will not constitute deficiency in service, since they are charged as per the Banking practice and the rules of the business.  Under the circumstances, what has been awarded by the Forum cannot be faulted with.

 

(3)                Furthermore, admittedly, the service provider is a Bank, but Bank is not made a party.  An Official of the Bank is a separate and distinct jurisdic person under Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  In the circumstances, the prayer for enhancement of claim other than what has been granted by the Forum, cannot be faulted with.

 

(4)                For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

              (i)     Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.

 

            (ii)     No order as to costs.

 

 

Pronounced on 6th July, 2011.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]
Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
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.