CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. MADANLAL SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) against the order dated 5.6.2007 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in appeal Nos. 396 of 2006 and 419 of 2006. Madan Lai Saran original complainant before the District Forum is the respondent in this revision petition.

(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had submitted that he had a savings bank account with Central Bank of India, Dindori, Madhya Pradesh and that on 15.9.1994 he received a cheque for Rs.4,05,673 from the Executive Engineer, District Water Supply Department, Dindori, M.P. which he deposited with the Petitioner bank. On 20.10.2004 Respondent requested the bank to transfer his account to Tank Road, Jaipur which was complied with. On 5.11.2004 respondent noted that there was no entry of deposit of Rs.4,05,673 and immediately contacted the bank to enquire about the same. Petitioner did not respond and, therefore, Respondent made a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman which rejected the same. Apprehending that the Branch Manager of the Petitioner Bank, Dindori Branch in collusion with the Executive Engineer of the District Water Supply Department had appropriated the cheque because neither was it honoured nor was the cheque returned to him so that he could take remedial measures, Respondent filed a complaint for deficiency in service before the District Forum and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay Respondent a sum of Rs.4,05,673 (i.e. the cheque amount) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.9.2004 till the date of payment with interest @ 12% p.a., Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2,000 as litigation costs.

(3.) The Petitioner bank denied the above allegations and stated that the issuer of the said cheque which is a Government department had specifically requested the Petitioner Bank to stop payment till further orders. Bank therefore did not credit the due amount to the Respondent's account and handed back the cheque to the said Government department.