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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 31254

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK – Appellant
Versus
DAVINDER SINGH – Respondent
SC/6/A/630/2022



Petitioner Advocates:ANANT BIR SINGH SIDHU ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/630/2022 PUNJAB AND SIND BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - SIRSA ,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus DAVINDER SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE SUCHAN, ,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. NARESH KATYAL , PRESIDING MEMBER MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MR. ANANT BIR SINGH, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. DAVINDER SINGH, RESPONDENT-IN PERSON.

DATED: 22/08/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 10.11.2022 Date of final hearing: 22.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.08.2025 First Appeal No.630 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank Sirsa.

2. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank Principal Office: Bank House, 21 Rajinder Place, New Delhi-110008.

3. The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, 2nd Floor, SCO 84-91, Madhya Marg, Bank Square, 17B, Chandigarh-160017.

...Appellants Versus Davinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Malkiat Singh, R/o Village Suchan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. …..Respondent CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

Argued by:- Mr. Anant Bir Singh, counsel for appellants.

Mr. Davinder Singh, respondent-in person.

ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER In this Appeal No.630 of 2022; order dated 15.09.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Sirsa (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.136 of 2021; vide which complainants’ complaint has been allowed, has been assailed.

2. Complainant’s father-Malkiat Singh was having KCC account with OP No.1 bearing account No. 2991600097278. He was also having saving bank account No. 02991000036337 with OP No.1. Sh. Malkiat Singh died on 14.09.2020 and as per plea; information about his death was given by complainant to OP No.1. Complainant did not have information about details of above two accounts opened by his father-Malkiat Singh with OP No.1. Complainant, being son, and also legal heir of his father late Sh. Malkiat Singh, made written request to OP No.1 on

15.12.2020 for providing/supplying him details of above said accounts i.e. loan sanction letter, legal report given by Advocate, bank agreement, DP note, mortgage deed and their account statement from day of its opening till end, detail of ATM card, insurance on ATM card, credit card issued on above said accounts, detail of any insurance policy/cover note issued as per Social Security Insurance Policy as per policy of Govt. of India on payment of Rs.12/- or Rs.330/- p.a. as insurance premium and any other insurance policy/cover note, amount deducted under PMFBY scheme and compensation amount credited in KCC account about crop loss and any other benefit issued against above accounts. However, bank refused to entertain his application. He made visits to bank for obtaining above information, but OP No.1 put him off on one pretext or other. In reply to letter dated 15.12.2020; OP No.1 wrote letter No. 1020 dated 13.01.2021 to him but it was not delivered to him in time and OP No.1 did not provide required information. He wrote letter to OP No.1 on 16.02.2021 through registered post but of no use. He got served legal notice upon OPs on 08.06.2021. On 03.06.2021, he moved complaint against Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank-Sirsa Branch before C.M. Window and General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank-Sirsa but CM Window treated that complaint as RTI matter and disposed it off on 09.06.2021. However, OP No.3 did not take any action on said complaint. On 30.06.2021, he moved complaint against Sh. Randhir Singh-the then Branch Manager of OP No.1 before Manager, Vigilance Office-New Delhi and again OP No.3. There was no action taken on his complaint. By alleging that act and conduct amounted to deficiency in service towards him thereby putting him to suffer unnecessary harassment; complaint has been filed for seeking direction to OPs to provide/supply him required information; to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compe

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top