Case nº Revision Petition No. 2300 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 30, 2013 (case 1. Amitaben Dilipkumar Shah 2. Apexa Dilipkumar Shah 3. Smruti Dilipkumar Shah 4. Pratik Dilipkumar Shah Vs Varachha Co.op Bank Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Dr.Bipin K Dwivedi, Advocate and For Respondent: Mr.Sanjay Mehta, Advocate |
| President | Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member & Suresh Chandra, Member |
| Resolution Date | January 30, 2013 |
Order:
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
-
Petitioners are legal heirs of complainant Late Shri Dilip Kumar Rasiklal Shah.They have preferred this revision petition against the impugned order of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, the State Commission) whereby State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent bank herein against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( Additional) of Surat which reads thus:
-
The complaint by the complainant is allowed as under.
-
The opponent in the case has allowed a withdrawl of Rs.1,68,450/- vide cheque no.7780 in the frozen Account No.4226.The said amount shall be credited in the Deceased Complainant s Account with interest as per rules and regulations of the bank effective Dt.09.08.2005.
-
The opponents in the matter shall pay to complainants in all sum of Rs.10,000/- (in words Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost of the complaint and mental physical torture.
-
The complainants as per relief prayed under complaint para -5 is not entitled to any additional relief.
-
The opponent shall bear the cost of suit himself.
-
The opponent shall comply the order within 30 days of this order.
-
Briefly put, the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that late complainant filed consumer complaint against the respondent opposite party claiming that he had an account bearing no.4226 with the opposite party, namely, Varachha Co-op Bank Ltd, VarachhaRoad, Surat.That on 04.12.2004 complainant gave written instructions to the respondent bank stating that he had lost certain cheques,as such no payment be made against those cheques from his aforesaid bank account without his written consent. That the respondentbank recorded the numbers of the lost cheques in their register.Despite that, bank allowed withdrawl of Rs.1,68,450/- from the bank account no. 4226 of the complainant against one of those lost cheques bearing no. 7780 without informing or obtaining consent from the complainant.
-
The respondent bank contested the complaint by filing a written submissions denying the allegations.
-
The District Forum after hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence produced came to the conclusion that the opposite party bank had encashed the cheque regarding which stop payment instructions were issued from the bank account no. 4226 of the complainant without seeking consent from him.This according to the District Forum amounted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial