JAIPAL SINGH SOOR Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal no. 337 of 2014 has been filed by the Punjab and Sind Bank and appeal no. 781 of 2015 has been filed by Jaipal Singh Soor against the orders dated 27th March 2014 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in FA no. 62 of 2012.

(2.) Brief facts are that the father of the complainant had fixed deposit nos. 853186, 853187, 853188 and 853189 with the opposite party bank. Though there was a nominee in the fixed deposits, however, the nominee pre-deceased the holder of the fixed deposits. After the death of the holder of the fixed deposits, the complainant filed an application for giving the proceeds of the fixed deposits to him on the basis of Letter of Administration from the High Court of England dated 24.07.2009. The bank asked formalities to be completed before the payment could be made. As the complainant felt aggrieved by the demands of the Bank for completing the formalities, he filed a consumer complaint no. 62 of 2012 before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party Bank by filing the written reply stating that the original of the Letter of Administration of the High Court of England was not filed with the Bank and therefore, it was not possible to honour the same and release the proceeds to the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed the original Letter of Administration of the High Court of England and the State Commission released the amount to the complainant. However, the State Commission finally decided the complaint and ordered the opposite party bank to pay Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation to the complainant for delaying the payment and for harassing the complainant.

(3.) The bank has filed an appeal no.337 of 2014 against the order dated 27.03.2014 of the State Commission on the ground that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank, therefore, award of compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh was not justified. The complainant has also filed cross appeal no. 781 of 2015 against the same impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has not paid the amount spent on air tickets from England to India as the complainant had to come three-four times for this purpose only.