Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agarwal, J
State Bank of Saurastra – Appellant
Versus
Jamnagar Jilla Saksharta Samiti – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bank's obligation in consumer service (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on delay and signature verification (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's affirmation of findings (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision on revision petition (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
1. This revision petition has been filed under S.21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 6.7.2010 of the State Commission in appeal No. 805 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 29.5.2006 of the District Commission in complaint No. 193 of 2005.
2. We have perused the record and have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party bank (the petitioner herein).
Learned proxy Counsel is present for the complainant society (the respondent herein), its learned Counsel is not available to argue on its behalf.
3. Briefly, the society, under the control of the state government, maintained its savings bank account with the bank. The account was being operated under the joint signatures of the District Development Officer and the Deputy District Continuous Education Officer. In the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 one senior clerk of the society, who was maintaining its books of accounts and the cheque - books, withdrew a total amount of Rs.13,7
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
