SHEELA WANTI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANTS /Appellants have filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated July 19, 2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Complaint No. 300/98 seeking interest on the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 awarded by the State Commission.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Complainants/Appellants had a joint saving Bank Account No. 45656 with the Respondent No. 1 Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent '). On 2.6.1997, Appellant No. 1 deposited with the Respondent Bank an Account Payee Demand Draft No. 400564 (000892) dated 29.5.1997 in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 payable at Canara Bank, New Delhi [Branch code No. 1745]. Presuming that the amount of the said demand draft would be credited in their account within 3 -4 days, Appellants requested the Respondent Bank on 17.6.1997 to issue a demand draft in favour of HUDA for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000. The said request was declined by the Respondent for want of sufficient balance. The demand draft was obtained only after depositing a sum of Rs. 200 in cash to make up the existing balance for issuance of the draft. On verbal enquiry, Appellants were informed by the Respondent Bank that the demand draft of Rs. 4,00,000 deposited by them on 2nd June, 1997 had been misplaced. Despite repeated requests made by the Appellants, Respondent Bank failed to trace the demand draft or credit the amount of the demand draft to the their account. Complainants, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 being the value of the demand draft and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 along with cost of litigation.

(3.) THE State Commission, after considering the material available on record and going through the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the pay -in slip with stamp of the bank manifestly indicated that the demand draft was received by the Respondent Bank and on the internal complaint of the Manager, the entire staff of the bank was transferred. It was further held that even an FIR was lodged by the Bank with the Police with regard to the loss of draft which was of a very heavy amount. Accordingly, State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 to the Appellants along with costs of Rs. 10,000. State Commission observed thus: