Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
B.C. KANDPAL, PRESIDENT; MR. D.K. TYAGI, H.J.S., & MRS. VEENA SHARMA, MEMBERS
HARDEV KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 217 of 2011 and 334 of 2013
Decided On : 28-10-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Anupama Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepak Ahluwalia, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the bank under the Consumer Protection Act and the requirement for the bank to provide evidence of crediting funds into the complainant's account.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Banking Dispute - Section 15 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15 - The court discussed the liability of the bank under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the District Forum, and the evidence required to prove the deposition of funds in the complainant's account.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the bank failed to credit cheques and drafts into his savings account, leading to financial loss. The bank claimed that the funds were misappropriated by a deceased bank official and that the complainant had already received the money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank failed to provide evidence of crediting the funds into the complainant's account. It also determined that the complainant was entitled to compensation but modified the rate of interest and set aside the damages awarded by the District Forum.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the bank to credit funds, the alleged misappropriation by a bank official, and the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's failure to provide evidence of crediting the funds warranted compensation for the complainant. It also clarified the jurisdiction of the District Forum and modified the rate of interest and damages awarded by the District Forum.
Final Decision: The First Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, and the First Appeal filed by the bank was partly allowed, confirming the rest of the impugned order.
ORDER :
MR. D.K. TYAGI, MEMBER
1. These two appeals, one by the complainant and another by the opposite party, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 269 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 from the date of deposit till the date of final payment along with 8% interest within one month from the date of order and has also directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000 as damages to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that there is savings bank account No. 9838 of the complainant Sh. Hardev Kumar with the opposite party–Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Kharkhari, Haridwar. The complainant do construction work as a contractor in the name of Panesar Construction, for which he receives amount through cheques and drafts and also pay amount through cheques. The complainant received a cheque No. 772404 dated 5.9.2005 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 of Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Haridwar from Baba Lal Ji, Dhyanpur Charitable Trust, Khankhal, District Haridwar, which was deposited by him in his bank account at opposite party. The complainant issued a cheque No. 581918 dated 29.3.2006 for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000, which has been returned by the Bank to the complainant showing insufficient fund in his account. The complainant received a demand draft No. 112693 dated 8.8.2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 of Punjab National Bank, Hoshiarpur from Maa Bhaageshwari Dhaam, Haridwar, which was to be withdrawn at Punjab National Bank, Apar Road, Haridwar. On 10.8.2005, the complainant also deposited this draft in his bank account at opposite party, but the opposite party did not credit the same in his savings bank account. The complainant made a complaint before the opposite party-bank, who has informed the complainant through two letters dated 30.3.2006 and 26.4.2006 respectively, that on receiving the complaint, an inquiry is going on, but no action has been taken by the bank and the said amount was not deposited in the complainant’s savings bank account. The complainant sent a complaint to the Reserve Bank of India in this regard. When the complainant inquired in the Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Haridwar about a cheque of Rs. 4,00,000 and also inquired in the Punjab National Bank, Apar Road, Haridwar about a demand draft of Rs. 3,00,000, then they informed him that the clearance of cheque of Rs. 4,00,000 and draft of Rs. 3,00,000 have been sent to the opposite party–Oriental Bank of Commerce, Haridwar. The complainant came to know that the officers of the opposite party have misappropriated the amount of his cheque and draft by transferring the amount in other account, for which the opposite party is responsible. The complainant has alleged that this act of the bank comes under the deficiency of service, due to this the complainant suffered a mental, physical and economical loss. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 7.00 lacs, for which the opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs with interest and Rs. 1.00 lac for mental, physical and economical loss and Rs. 15,000 towards litigation expenses.
3. The opposite party has filed its written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it is admitted that the savings bank account of the complainant is running with the opposite party. It is also admitted that the cheque and draft of Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 were cleared from the Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Haridwar and Punjab National Bank, Apar Road, Haridwar respectively. The opposite party has stated that the official of the opposite party namely Sh. Rajpal Singh Aswal and the complainant had conspired to usurp the amount of the bank. Sh. Rajpal Singh Aswal was giving undue advantage to the c
