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

SURJIT SINGH, PREM CHAUHAN, VIJAY PAL KHACHI
Rajneesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate.

ORDER :

Surjit Singh, President

Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2014, of learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, who are the functionaries of Punjab National Bank, has been dismissed, with the finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in June, 2011, against the respondents alleging that he had a saving bank account No. 388900010053639 and that in the month of May 2010, he issued a cheque in favour of a person, which was returned with the endorsement that the account stood frozen. Appellant alleged that he had never been issued any show cause notice for freezing his account and that later on, he came to know that the account had been frozen on the basis of a complaint by a lady, that a sum of Rs. 68,600 had been illegally withdrawn by misusing her ATM card and the said amount of money had been credited in the aforesaid (frozen) account belonging to him.

3. Complaint was contested by the respondents, who sta

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