SYNDICATE BANK Vs. KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1348/2010 Kamal Kishore Sharma & Anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 had saving bank account with OP which was converted into joint account with Complainant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 and was operated jointly by both the complainants. That account bearing ID NO. 2471 and new no. 30412013450 (30412010003450) was also being operated by Smt. Saroja Goenka as authority holder of the complainant. It was further alleged that Complainant No. 1 had also another saving bank account with the OP which was later on converted into joint account with complainant no. 2. Complainant No. 1 during visit to India in the months of January and February 2009 issued 11 cheques out of which, one cheque was cancelled by the complainant himself and 8 cheques were cleared by OP, but two cheques dated 5.2.2009 bearing No. 345677 and 345678 worth Rs.2,500/- and Rs.3,000/-, respectively were dishonoured by OP for the reason signatures incomplete. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that A/c. No. 2471 was an individual account of Complainant No. 1 and was never converted into joint account of Complainant No. 2. It was further submitted that Complainant No. 1 was only a nominee in the A/c having no authority to operate the said account, but OP in order to avoid inconvenience cheques issued by Complainant No. 1 pertaining to Complainant No. 2's account which were presented at the counter or received through local clearing were honoured but two cheques of outstation branches were returned as signatures did not tally and there was no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainants was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainants along with interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/- as cost against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.