H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: 32/2022 Date of Presentation: 13.04.2022 Reserved on: 08.05.2024 Date of Decision: 15.05.2024 ………………………………………………………………………

Shyo Ram Dhanial S/o late Sh. Nanak Chand, Proprietor Palak Enterprises, Una Road, Near Himalyan Dhaba, Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.

…....... Appellant/Complainant.

Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., through its Branch Manager.

.......... Respondent/Opposite Party.

………………………………………………………………………

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

Hon’ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Member.

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr.Sahil Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.

Parveen Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Rattan, Advocate.

………………………………………………………………………

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R:

Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.09.2021 of learned District Commission Una, in consumer complaint No.94/2017 titled Shyo Ram Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited Rs.35,354/- through cheque No.822960 dated 25.07.2016 through NEFT in the account of one Basant Ice Cream through opposite party/Bank. After few days, the complainant came to know that amount deposited by him in the account of Basant Ice Cream has not been received by them. Complainant inquired the said fact from the opposite party/bank and came to know that opposite party/Bank has deposited the amount in the wrong account which belongs to one Om Food Products, Gramudyog Mandal. The complainant requested the opposite party/Bank to refund the said amount, but the opposite party/Bank refused to return the amount. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of opposite party/Bank. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite party/Bank resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply and admitted the fact that the complainant had deposited the cheque in the bank. The amount was transferred to the account number mentioned in the cheque by the complainant himself. As such, there is no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party/Bank. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder denying the averments made in the reply and reaffirmed and reasserted the averments as those made in the complaint.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the complainant handed over a cheque amounting to Rs.35,354/- to the bank for depositing the same in the account of Basant Ice Cream through NEFT. He further submitted that after some time, the complainant came to know that while issuing the said cheque, the complainant has mentioned wrong account number in the same and the cheque amount has wrongly been deposited in the account of Om Food Products, Gramudyog Mandal. He further submitted that this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent/Bank, but no action was taken by the respondent-

bank which is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/Bank. He further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and prays that appeal of the appellant be allowed. He has also relied upon order of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Vikas Goyal &

Ors. dated 23.02.2024.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank has submitted that Bank has rightly trans