Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/626/2018

Axis Bank Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Upendra Singh S/o Shri Moti Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Shyam Vayas

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 626/2018

 

Axis Bank Ltd., Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur through Br.Manager.

Vs.

Sh.Upendra Singh s/o Moti Singh, Plot No. 60m Kishna Vihar, Opp.Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO; 595/2018

 

Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur through Br.Manager

Vs.

Sh.Upendra Singh s/o Moti Singh, Plot No. 60m Kishna Vihar, Opp.Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO; 571/2018

 

Sh.Upendra Singh s/o Moti Singh, Plot No. 60m Kishna Vihar, Opp.Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. & ors.

2

 

Vs.

Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur through Br.Manager & ors.

 

Date of Order 7.3.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. Shyam Vyas counsel for Axis Bank

Mr.Pramod Shandilya counsel for Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank

Mr.Abhishek Jain counsel for SBI (SBBJ)

Mr. Umesh Nagpal counsel for the complainant Upendra Singh

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

All these appeals are preferred against the single order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the banks is that they are not

3

 

deficient as the cheque has been submitted and it was rightly been cleared and amount was paid to the payee hence, liability could not be attributed to the banks.

 

The other contention of the banks is that Rs.55,000/- has already been paid to the complainant and rest of the money is lying with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and account has been freezed. Hence, the money could be obtained from the SBBJ account of Rakesh Kumar an award of Rs. 4,50,000/- should be reduced accordingly.

 

Per contra the contention of the complainant is that the banks are deficient and the claim should have been enhanced as only Rs. 5000/- has been awarded for mental agony.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The Forum below has rightly held that cheque no.3579991 was issued in favour of complainant Maldev Singh. It was presented to Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank and sent for collection to Axis Bank. The cheque was stolen and it was

4

 

encashed in favour of Rakesh Kumar. The contention of Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank is that Rakesh Kumar and Karan Singh are not the employees of the bank. Be that may be the case when cheque has been presented in the bank and it was misplaced or stolen the deficiency is writ large on the part of concerned bank.

 

The other contention of Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank is that seal affixed on the deposit slip is not of bank and they have submitted the sample seals of the bank but the contention is not available to the bank that cheque was not presented to the bank as it has been sent for collection to Axis Bank by Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank only. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank deficient.

 

The contention of the Axis Bank is that cheque was received for collection and it was duly encashed in the name of payee. Copy of the cheque shows that name of Rakesh Kumar is entered after cutting the earlier name and signatures of the authorized signatories were affixed on it. When there is cutting on the cheque, it was the duty of the Axis Bank to verify the issue of the cheque from the

5

 

authorized signatures. Hence, the Axis Bank has also rightly been held deficient.

 

The other contention of the banks is that Rs. 55,000/- has already been paid to the complainant hence, the amount should be reduced accordingly and further rest of the money is lying with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and it is freezed which could be taken from there. Hence, compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- should have been reduced accordingly.

 

It is true that when Rs. 55,000/- has already been taken by the complainant, he could not get double benefit out of the litigation but as regard to freezing the account of Rakesh Kumar it has been freezed on the instruction of Jaipur Thar Grameen Bank and he can have the money back as per the operation of law. The complainant at present is not in a position to take the money from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur which is lying in account of Rakesh Kumar. Hence, this contention of the banks is not acceptable but in view of the fact that Rs. 55,000/- has already been taken by the complainant, the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 4,50,000/- to Rs. 3,95,000/-.

6

 

The contention of the complainant is that for mental agony compensation should have been enhanced but it is not appropriate to enhance the compensation as cheque amount alongwith interest has already been allowed to the complainant.

 

In view of the above, the appeals of the banks are partly allowed and amount of compensation is reduced from Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs. 3,95,000/-. Rest order of the Forum below is confirmed. The appeal filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm