UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAKESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.1 is said to have remitted a sum of Rs. 1500/ - for purchasing shares. This amount was sent through Speed Post on 4th Sept., 1993. This was sent to Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch. As the shares were not made available to the complainant respondent No. 1, he filed a complaint before the Divisional Forum, constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act. 1987. He attributed part of delay to the postal authorities and also lodged claim against the Bank of India. As there was failure on the part of Union of India to put in appearance before the Consumer Forum, an award was passed against it. The Union of India was directed to pay compensation to respondent No 1. An application was preferred by the Union of India for setting aside the exparte proceedings. This application was dismissed. An appeal was taken. This appeal also stands dismissed. This is how the present writ petition came to be filed in this Court

(2.) IT is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 1500/ - has been refunded by the Bank of India and as a matter of fact, even the Divisional Forum did not give any direction to the Union of India to refund a sum of Rs. 1500/ -to respondent No. 1. There was a direction regarding payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/ - which liability was fixed upon Union of India, which is being challenged in this petition. It be seen that the Bank had received the amount in question and if this be the situation, then the Divisional Forum should have called upon the record of the Bank and examined as to when the letter in question was received by the Bank. But without doing so. the liability as indicated above, has been fixed upon the Union of India.

(3.) THE stand of the respondent Bank is that every day large number of cheques are received by the Bank. It is also stated that as there are two branches of this Bank in Sector 17 at Chandigarh, therefore, it was not possible for the Bank to give the requisite information to respondent No. 1. It is also urged that the Union of India did not furnish the particulars to the Bank and when the complaint was filed under the Act of 1987, it was not in a position to put across its point of view.