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

D.K.JAIN, VINAY KUMAR, M.SHREESHA
SHIRISH S KIRTIKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF PATIALA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sanjay Kumar Ghosh and Rupali Ghosh, Advocates, for the Appellant; Rajiv Kapur, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

D.K. Jain, President - I.A. No. 7968/2013 (For condonation of delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by medical certificates, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Application stands disposed of.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2013

1. Challenge in this Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"), by the Complainant, is to the order, dated 30.03.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in CC NO.101/10. By the impugned order, the State Commission has held that neither the Respondent Bank, namely, State Bank of Patiala nor its officials were deficient in rendering services to the Complainant while dealing with his Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs). However, while dismissing the Complaint on merits, the State Commission has also observed that since the allegations levelled in the Complaint require detailed enquiry and recording of evidence, a Consumer Fora constituted under the Act, is not the proper forum for redressal of his grievance.

2. The salient facts, giving rise to the Appeal, are as follows:-

The Appellant is engaged in pr

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