ANIL KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the order of the District Forum No.1, dated 14.7.1994, dismissing the complaint of the appellant/complainant, in Complaint Case No.1719/93 entitled as Shri Anil Kumar Chopra V/s. State Bank of India and Ors. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the appellant/complainant is a S. B. I. credit card holder and a credit card cheque book was issued to him. The credit card cheques, as per the scheme, are encashable from any branch of the respondent Bank as well as the branches of the Associate Banks, within the territory of India. As per the appellant's case despite the above fact the cheques of the appellant/complainant were refused to be encashed on several occasions by the various branches of the respondent and its Associate Banks. Firstly, the Timarpur Branch of the respondent Bank refused the encashment of the appellant's cheque on 7.9.1991. The appellant/complainant lodged a written complaint with the Zonal Officer of the respondent Bank. Vide letter dated 17.10.1991, the respondent Bank expressed regrets regarding the same. Thereafter, again on 21.6.1993 the State Bank of Patiala, Wazirpur Industrial Area Branch refused to encash the credit card cheques presented before it by the appellant/complainant. Similarly on 8.7.1993, the appellant/complainant accompanied by his wife, went from office to Kamla Nagar in the evening and since he needed money, the appellant/complainant visited the Suvidha Banking Centre of the respondent Bank to get his credit card cheques encashed but was refused the encashment of the same.

(2.) The appellant/complainant again visited the above said centre on the morning on 9.7.1993 and presented the credit card cheques, which was again refused to be encashed. The appellant/complainant, therefore, had to get the same encashed from the Roop Nagar Branch of the respondent Bank. Feeling aggrieved with the above acts of commission and/omission, more particularly the attitude of the staff of the respondent, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum on 14.7.1993 claiming Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs for the deficiency in service by the respondent Bank.

(3.) The respondent contested the said complaint on the ground that the complainant/appellant had never visited the alleged branches of the respondent Bank for encashment of the credit card cheques and, therefore, there could be no question of refusal to encash cheques in question. It was also contended that since the said cheques are encashed at its branches in the normal course of business, there was no occasion for its staff to refuse to encash the cheques of the appellant/complainant. The Counsel for the respondent alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank.