SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.K.JOSHI, M.S.PARIKH
BANK OF BARODA – Appellant
Versus
SMITABEN ARVINDLAL ENGINEER – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Mr. K.I. Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—This appeal arises from order dated 31st March, 1997 rendered by the learned Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Disputes Redressal Petition No. 107/1995. Impugned order reads as under :

“The opponent No. 1-Bank is hereby ordered to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the applicant together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 18.5.1992 till its realization and also Rs. 1,000/- as an additional compensation by way of costs of the proceedings, mental agony, inconvenience, harassment, hardships, etc.”

2. It was the complainant’s case that she applied for 700 units of Master Gain-1992 from the original opponent No. 2 on whose behalf the opponent No. 1, Bank of Baroda acted as the banker for rendition of the banking service to the consumer. The complainants presented the application on 18.5.1992 with the opponent No. 1 Bank. She also paid Rs. 7,000/- in cash for purchasing 700 units of Master Gain-1992. The amount was accepted by the employee of opponent No. 1 Bank. Inspite of such facts the complainant did not receive unit certificate or the refund order. On 22.4.1993 the complainant approached the Manager of the opponen















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top