Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/213

SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BHOSALE - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

S S KOREGAVE

29 Mar 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/213
(Arisen out of Order Dated 21/09/2010 in Case No. 290/2010 of District Kolhapur)
 
1. SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BHOSALE
R/O MADHURI RESIDENCY PLOT NO 94 SHIVAJI PARK KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA
STATION ROAD BRANCH KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mrs. J.D.Yengal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:S S KOREGAVE , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
ORDER

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21/09/2010 passed in consumer complaint bearing no.290/10, Ramakant Rajaram Bhosale v/s. Union Bank of India, Kolhapur, whereby consumer complaint stood dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘the forum’ in short).

According to appellant/org.complainant arrangements were made between him and the bank that if a cheque is issued on one account and if the balance there is insufficient to honour the cheque, then if there is sufficient balance to honour the cheque in other account standing in the name of his wife, amount could be drawn from the said account of the wife to honour the cheque. According to the complainant, he had issued one cheque to pay the bill amount of `411/- and `462/- to the Telephone company -BSNL and another cheque was issued to make the payment towards the bills of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company.  However, those cheques were dishonoured on the ground of insufficient balance in the account. The bank did not draw the amount as stated aforesaid from the account of the complainant’s wife, where the sufficient balance was lying and, therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the Bank, consumer complaint was filed. 

Bank denied existence of any such arrangement and that it was so agreed between the parties.  Forum accepting the contention of the bank, dismissed the consumer complaint.

The appellant /complainant wants to rely upon the letter dated 30/5/2008 given to the bank by him regarding the above referred arrangement.  However, bank though admit having received such letter, denied that any such arrangement was accepted and agreed upon.  It is further contended by the bank that though clearance of cheques issued is possible from any of the bank’s branches through core banking/internet is possible, it is not possible to transfer the balance from one account to another account to honour the cheque.  Complainant failed to show that any such arrangement in fact was accepted and bank agreed to give such service. Under the circumstances, forum rightly dismissed the consumer complaint and we find no fault with it and finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:-

                                      ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

No order as to costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 29th March, 2011.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mrs. J.D.Yengal]
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.