BANK OF BARODA Vs. SMITABEN ARVINDLAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 31st March, 1997 rendered by the learned Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Disputes Redressal Petition No.107/1995. Impugned order reads as under : "the opponent No.1-Bank is hereby ordered to pay Rs.7,000/- to the applicant together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 18.5.1992 till its realization and also Rs.1,000/- as an additional compensation by way of costs of the proceedings, mental agony, inconvenience, harassment, hardships, etc. "

(2.) It was the complainant's case that she applied for 700 units of Master Gain-1992 from the original opponent No.2 on whose behalf the opponent No.1, Bank of Baroda acted as the banker for rendition of the banking service to the consumer. The complainants presented the application on 18.5.1992 with the opponent No.1 Bank. She also paid Rs.7,000/- in cash for purchasing 700 units of Master Gain-1992. The amount was accepted by the employee of opponent No.1 Bank. Inspite of such facts the complainant did not receive unit certificate or the refund order. On 22.4.1993 the complainant approached the Manager of the opponent No.2 and on 7.6.1993 the complainant was informed that no application was received by the opponent No.2 from opponent No.1 Bank. The complainant, therefore, approached opponent No.1 Bank and after several callings and reminders as also after serving notice there was no response from opponent No.1 Bank. Had the opponent No.1 Bank transmitted the unit application along with the amount paid by the complainant she would have received 700 units of Master Gain-1992 from opponent No.2. She, therefore, prayed for return of the amount of Rs.7,000/- with 24% interest from 18.5.1992 and compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/-.

(3.) Opponent No.1 Bank resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that complainant did not deposit the amount, that 2171 applications were received on the same day and the amount of Rs.1,11,66,000/- was transmitted to the Unit Trust of India under the Master Gain-1992 Scheme. The opponent Bank, therefore, requested the learned Forum for directing the complainant to produce the original receipt for inspection of the opponent No.1 Bank. It was also alleged that Bank's seal might have been misused either by the complainant or by any member of the staff. It had been asserted that complicated questions would arise in the matter requiring relegating the complainant to a Civil Court.