Back
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISION, ORISSA: CUTTACK.
OF 2006
FIRST APPEAL NO
OF 2006.
An application under Secion 15 of
the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
UCO Bank,
Sambalpur Branch,
At-Gaiety Road,
P.OP.S/ Dist Sambalpur.
(Opposite party in the Forum below)
IN THE MATTER ODF
APPELLANT
- VERSUS -
Sri Chaitanya Chandra Pruseth
A resident of Katardhua Chowk,
P.O- Budharaja , P.S- Ainthapalli,
District- Sambalpur.
(Complainant in the Forum below)
feneo
RESPONDENT
Date of
Order
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
SI. No.
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
F.A. 1052 OF 2006
Io)1:2
the
Heard the learned counsel for
the
appellant.
None appears for the respondent.
This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile
Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after called the
Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be
referred to
with reference to their respective status
before the learned District Forum.
The case of the complainant in nutshell is
that the complainant
being ah ex-employee was
allowed to draw Rs.4500/- by OP-ßank, Sambalpur from
their Bill purchase amount on | 13.03.1986 against
cheque for same bank deposited by complainant drawn
on UCO Bank,Sahid nagar,Bhubaneswar.
The said
cheque
was to be collected from the Sahid nagar
branch of the Bank by the OP to adjust the same from
the
bill purchase account
in the name of the
oGP-MP-CTCP (FS&cw) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020
Office note as to action (if any)
taken on Order
Date of
ORDER WITH SINATURE
SI. No
Order
of Order
complainant. The complainant alleged inter-alia that he
has retired from service of the bank on 1.1.1996 and
long after the retirement he was informed that the bill
purchase amount has been debited to his S/B Account
No.1018209 maintained by the OP towards adjustment
of the outstanding in the bill pyrchase amount standing
in the name of the complainant. As the OP did not return
the cheque at that time and long after retirement without
his consent amount being realized,
there is deficiency
of service on the part of the OP for which the complaint
was filed
The OP filed written version stating that they
have paid Rs.4500/-
to the complainant from bil
purchase against complainant's| cheque No. 506860
This amount
was outstanding ih the OP- bank since
2006 against complainant and latr
on it was recovered.
So, there is no deficiency of servide on the part of OP
After hearing both the parties, learned District
Forum have passed the following drder
Date of
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
SI. No.
ORDER wITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
In the above ptemises, we allow the
complaint petition and direct the OP to credit back
the amount of Rs.4500/- debited from the S/B
account of the complainant| to his said account
bearing No.1018209 at S/B account rate thereon
from 15.6.2006 till the date of such credit and pay
to the complainant an amourit of Rs.500/-(Rupees
Five hundred) towards cos
of this proceeding
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as
to payment of any compensatpn."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that learned District Forum has
committed error in law
by not considering the fact that the complainant was in
arrear and he was supposed to pay Rs.4500I- to the OP
and the OP has also sent the cheque who took time to
debit .same to
the account of the complainant. He
submitted that since the deficiency f service is not at all
found by the learned District Forum, the entire order
should be set-acide-
oGP-MP-CTCP (FS&cW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER VWITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
Considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR including
impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant had
incurred loan of Rs.4500/-
