BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO: 32 /2021

M/s. Uma Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., through Director, CR Das Farm, Gopalpura Mode, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

Vs.

State Bank of India through Manager Office- SMS Highway, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

Date of Order 16.11.2021

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh -Member

Mr. Rajendra Vijay learned counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ajay Gupta learned counsel for the respondent

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

2

Present appeal is preferred by the appellant complainant assailing the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned DCC Jaipur 1^st Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 933/2012 (M/s. Uma Enterprises Vs. State Bank of India.) whereby the learned DCC dismissed the complaint considering that there is no relation regarding consumer and service provider between the parties.

Brief facts relevant for this appeal are that appellant complainant filed a complaint before the learned DCC u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 stating therein that complainant is having CC limit account no. 51091727337 in SBBJ Chaura Rasta branch, Jaipur. On 20.12.2011 complainant issued cheque no. 341917 amounting to Rs. 8803/- in favour of M/s. New Fund Company. On 9.1.2012 when complainant checked his account, he found that on 24.12.2012 the subject cheque was encashed for Rs.80803/- in place of Rs. 8803/- and the amount was withdrawal from some another bank at Jammu & Kashmir. When complainant reported this fact to non-applicant they assured for doing needful in this regard and when after lapse of considerable period non-applicant failed to

3

take any action, the complainant issued legal notice on 28.6.2012 on which non-applicant asked for indemnity bond. It is further pleaded that since there is fault of bank still bank is asking for indemnity bond therefore, complainant suffered mental and physical agony and deprieved from the considerable amount of Rs. 80803/-. Lastly it was prayed that bank be directed to return Rs.80803/- with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 51,000/- for mental and physical agony, Rs. 11,000/- for advocate fee and Rs. 5000/- for litigation expenses.

Non-applicant which was later on merged in State Bank of India in its reply pleaded that cheque was issued in favour of M/s. New Fund Company and the amount of Rs.80803/- was withdrawal from the account of complainant which was transferred to account no. 30903286707 of Sh.Sunil s/o Sh.Gogi, State Bank of India, Branch Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Jammu. It is also pleaded that bank also asked for indemnity bond so that the amount may be transferred in his account but complainant failed to submit the indemnity bond. It is also pleaded that non-applicant also lodged FIR on 7.5.2012 at Suptd. of Police, Jaipur South.

4

Both parties filed affidavit in support of their pleadings and other documents. Thereafter after hearing the parties learned DCC held that since complainant is private limited company and the subject account is CC limit account and according to it it is commercial transaction therefore, there is no relation between the parties as consumer and service provider. However, learned DCC on admission of non-applicant bank directed to return the amount after submitting indemnity bond by complainant. Against which appellant complainant preferred this appeal.

Mr.Rajendra Vijay learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that though learned DCC directed the respondent to return the amount but did not award any interest in favour of complainant therefore, interest may be awarded as respondent retained the amount from the year 2011.

Per contra Mr.Ajay Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that since there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the parties as appellant complainant

5

is running business and s