HAZARI LAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Siddharth Nagar in Complaint Case No.26/1999. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant claimed interest of Rs.5,000/- for three years and Rs.5,000/- as compensation against the opposite party. It is alleged that the complainant got a bank draft prepared for Rs.5,000/- on 6.4.1995 in favour of Zenith Sports Company, Calcutta for purchase of shares. This draft was handed over to State Bank of India at Kanpur for sending it to the Company at Calcutta. According to the complainant the Kanpur branch of State Bank of India did not send this application to the Company as its business has been closed. It is further alleged that the State Bank of India should have immediately returned the amount of the draft to the complainant. On 24th of May, 1999 complainant applied for return of the amount of Rs.5,000/- which was returned to him. He claimed interest on the above amount at the rate of 20% per annum for the period for which State Bank of India detained. He also claimed compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) Opposite party No.1, State Bank of India, Kanpur Branch filed separate statement and opposite party No.2 State Bank of India filed another written statement. Opposite party No.2 admitted that State Bank of India, Kanpur, is their branch at Kanpur. It was further admitted that a draft for Rs.5,000/- was made as alleged by the complainant. The payment of this draft was to be made by the Kanpur Branch. Sri Ashok Kumar had intimated opposite party No.2 that the bank draft has been lost and a new duplicate draft be prepared and handed over to him. On the same day, i. e.1.6.1998 duplicate draft was prepared and was given to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has alleged that complainant Ashok Kumar had on 4.6.1998 applied for cancellation of duplicate draft and for payment of Rs.5,000/- to him. On 9.6.1998 the payment was made to him. There was no deficiency in service. It is further alleged that Complaint Case No.72/1996 was filed by Sri Hazari Lal on the basis of same facts which was dismissed on 27.1.1998 and hence this suit is not maintainable.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 has also alleged that M/s. Zenith Sports Company had nominated it as a banker but by the time several applications were received from various persons for allotment of shares, the Company had closed its business. The amount of those persons was returned to them. Complainant Hazari Lal had not made any application or deposited money for allotment of shares and hence the Bank was not at all liable to return the amount to Hazari Lal. Sri Hazari Lal by his letter applied for return of the amount. Then he was informed by letters dated 22.4.1996 and 23.5.1996 that he should get in touch with the Kanpur Branch for return of the amount as the complainant is not its consumer. It is further alleged that the previous complaint filed with respect to the return of the amount of this draft has already been dismissed by the District Forum and hence this complaint is not maintainable.