STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. TRISHUL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 15.9.2004 in Complaint No. 52/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short), whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had on 31.1.2004 applied for preparing 2 demand drafts of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (one lac) each and one demand draft for Rs. 2,00,000/ - (two lacs) and one demand draft for Rs. 10,00,000/ - (ten lacs) in favour of Managing Director, CG State Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar and Vikas) Sahkari Sangh Maryadit. However, the OP Bank had prepared the drafts of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (one lac) and that of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (two lacs) in wrong name i.e., Pra. San. C.G.R. Laghu Van (V&B) Sah. Sangh Mydt., though the draft for Rs. 10,00,000/ - (ten lacs) was prepared in the right name in Hindi. The aforesaid drafts, bearing Nos. 060276, 060277 and 060298 were prepared in wrong name by the opposite party and the complainant had to get the same cancelled and get fresh drafts prepared. However, the OP charged Rs. 800/ - for cancelling the aforesaid 3 drafts and Rs. 150/ - towards service charges for preparing the new drafts. Hence the complainant had to bear additional sum of Rs. 950/ - due to negligence on the part of the OPs and the complainant had claimed the aforesaid sum together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 31.1.2004 till realisation and Rs. 10,000/ - towards damages for mental harassment.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by OP and it was averred in the written version that there was no transaction between the complainant and OP Opposite party prepared the draft at the request of Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur. It was further averred in the written version that all the branches of OP have been computerized and there is no provision for writing such big names, hence the name of the party was mentioned in abbreviated form on the said drafts. It was averred that the change of name was not possible in the aforesaid draft, hence the said drafts were to be cancelled and new drafts were prepared in their place. Hence OP had charged cancellation charges as well as service charges for preparing new drafts and are not at all guilty of deficiency in service.