Back
F.A..No.:680/2014
1
Date of filing :17.10.2014
Date of order :09.02.2016
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :680 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 118 OF 2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PARBHANI.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Purna Branch,
Tq.Purna, Dist.Parbhani.
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
Mohammad Altaf S/o Mohammad Sharif,
R/o Vijaynagar, Purna,
Tq.Purna, Dist.Parbhani.
…RESPONDENT.
CORAM :
Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present :
Adv.Mr.P.B.Paithankar for appellant,
Adv.Mr.Shoaib Farhan Mahtab Khan for
respondent.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 9th February 2016)
Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
18.09.2014 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum, Parbhani partly
allowing complainant’s claim in consumer complaint No.118/2012
directing appellant/opponent bank to pay to the complainant amount
of cheque of Rs.75,000/- and further compensation Rs.3000/-
towards mental agony etc.
(For the sake of brevity appellant State Bank of India is herein after
referred as opponent bank and respondent Mr.Mohammad Altaf as
the complainant)
F.A..No.:680/2014
2
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Mohd.Altaf is a consumer of opponent bank
having
saving
account
No.0011557460178.
On
13.9.2010
complainant deposited with the opponent bank cheque of Rs.75,000/-
drawn on Syndicate Bank, Adilabad for encashment. On receipt of
cheque, opponent bank sent the cheque to Syndicate Bank for
clearance. But despite repeated oral enquiry by the complainant
opponent bank did not credit the amount of cheque in his account.
Even no response is given to his enquiry by the opponent bank.
However, on 16.1.2012 when complainant withdrawn the some
amount from his account and made enquiry with the opponent bank
he came to know that on 17.2.2011 amount of cheque of Rs.75,000/-
was shown to be credited in his account and subsequently the same
amount came to be debited. Thereafter on enquiry with the opponent
bank he was informed by letter dated 16.1.2012 that the cheque was
dishonoured but it is lost etc. It is submitted that as no intimation
about dishonouring cheque was received to the complainant he could
not take any action against the person who issued the cheque and
thereby sustained loss. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the
part of opponent bank, complainant has filed consumer complaint
claiming amount of cheque with interest and also compensation
Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.
3. In response to the complaint notice, opponent bank appeared
before the Forum and resisted the complaint by its written version
contending inter alia that on receipt of the cheque, amount of cheque
was credited in the account of complainant as uncleared balance and
subsequently when intimation was received about bouncing cheque
same amount came to be debited. It is submitted that after sending
the cheque to Syndicate Bank, opponent bank has repeatedly made
follow up and has not committed any deficiency in service. It is
further submitted that immediately after receiving intimation about
F.A..No.:680/2014
3
bouncing the cheque, the complainant was informed by letter dated
16.1.2012 but complainant has falsely alleged that opponent bank
has committed deficiency in service etc. It has denied all other
adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to
dismiss the complaint.
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record
District Consumer Forum held that opponent bank has committed
deficiency in service by not informing the complainant immediately
after when cheque was returned from Syndicate Bank with intimation
as insufficient balance etc. It is also observed that due to negligence
on
