DEVI DAYAL SHARMA vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 8.8.2002, passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagri, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. C-64/1999 - entitled Shri Devi Dayal Sharma v. Oriental Bank of Commerce.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Devi Dayal Sharma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant along with his wife Smt. Santosh Kumari was having a joint Savings Bank Account bearing No. 751 with the Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Branch of the respondent Bank for the last about 25 years. It was stated in the complaint filed by the appellant that on 17.12.1998, the appellant had deposited a cheque for Rs. 27,491/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Moti Nagar Branch, Delhi with the respondent for being credited to his above mentioned Savings Bank Account. It was stated that the abovesaid cheque, deposited by the appellant with the respondent Bank, was honoured by the drawee Bank (Central Bank of India, Moti Nagar, Delhi) on 19.12.1998. It was stated that on 21.12.1998, the appellant presented a cheque for Rs. 27,410/- at the counter of the respondent Bank to have the same encashed but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with the remarks that the cheque deposited by the appellant on 17.12.1998 had not been credited to the account of the appellant. It was stated that the respondent Bank neither paid the amount of that cheque nor gave anything in writing. It was further stated that on 22.12.1998, the appellant submitted an application together with an affidavit requesting therein for the release of the amount of the cheque which was kept in Suspense Account but no response was received from the respondent Bank. THEreafter, the appellant got a legal notice served through his Advocate on the respondent Bank on 26.12.1998 but no response even to the legal notice was received by the appellant. It was stated in the complaint that vide letter dated 11.1.1999, respondent Bank informed the appellant that the authorities of the respondent Bank had withheld the amount of the deposited cheque, amounting to Rs. 27,419/- on the ground that the appellant had introduced a fake account of some Shri A.K. Malik. It was stated that the appellant had no information or no knowledge of any previous inquiry on the above point till the receipt of the abovesaid com-munication from the respondent Bank. As the appellant failed to receive any positive response from the respondent Bank in respect of the cheque deposited by him on 17.12.1998 for Rs. 27,419/-, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum praying that the respondent Bank be directed to pay the amount of the cheque in question together with compensation of Rs. 5,500/-.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank offered before the District Forum payment of interest @ 7% p.a. for 18 months on the amount of the cheque in question but the same was not acceptable to the appellant. The learned District Forum thereafter vide impugned order has directed that the appellant be paid interest on the amount of the cheque in question at the FDR rates, prevalent on the date when the amount was allowed to be withdrawn. Not feeling satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant along with his wife Smt. Santosh Kumari was having a joint Savings Bank Account, bearing No. 751 in the Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Branch of the respondent Bank. It is also not in dispute that on 17.12.1998, the appellant had deposited a cheque for Rs. 27,419/- with the respondent Bank to be credited to the said Savings Bank Account. It is also not in dispute that the amount of the abovesaid cheque was not credited to the abovesaid Savings Bank Account and was kept in Suspense Account by the respondent Bank. The learned District Forum, as already stated, has granted interest on the abovesaid amount at the FDR rates prevalent on the date when the amount was allowed to be withdrawn. The grievance of the appellant, as already stated, is that the rate of interest allowed by the District Forum is not adequate and that the appellant should have been allowed interest @ 18% p.a. on the abovesaid amount and not at the FDR rates. In our opinion, in the given facts, the contention being advanced by the appellant before us is without any substance because the cheque in question was to be credited in the joint Savings Bank Account of the appellant and his wife and had that the cheque in question been credited in that account, the appellant would have received interest in respect of that amount which was payable by the respondent Bank in respect of deposits made in the Savings Bank Account whereas the District Forum has allowed the interest at FDR rates which are decidedly higher than the rate of interest given to a depositor on deposits made in Savings Bank Account. In our opinion, in the given facts, it cannot be stated that the relief granted by the District Forum is inadequate. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well-reasoned order and the same, therefore, calls for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limini with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.