MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER vs DILIP KUMAR BILOCHI

Petitioner being aggrieved of the concurrent finding of the Fora below against it has preferred this revision petition.

Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent Dilip Kumar Bilochi filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Fourth, Jaipur alleging deficiency in service of the bank inasmuch as not honouring the amount of cheque issued in favour of Religare Securities Pvt. Ltd. on 10.05.2008 on the ground that there was insufficient fund despite of the fact that Rs.15,000/- were deposited by the complainant in his saving bank account by cash on 09.05.2008 before the issuance of cheque.

The petitioner/opposite party resisted the complaint on merits. Opposite party also took a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer because the subject cheque was issued in respect of a commercial transaction i.e. for payment of the shares purchased through Religare Securities Pvt. Ltd.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings allowed the complaint and directed as under: -

" Thus the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the opposite party bank is ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service.

Out of Rs.10,000/- the opposite party bank shall pay Rs.5,000/- from the bank fund and remaining Rs.5,000/- the Branch Manager SBBJ, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur shall conduct an enquiry and ensure that this amount is deducted out of the account of the officer responsible for carelessness and pay the amount accordingly.

Apart from this the opposite party bank is directed to pay Rs.2500/- towards mental harassment and another Rs.2500/- towards legal expenses. Remaining claims of the complainant are rejected.

The opposite party bank shall comply with the order within two months failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of the order till actual payment."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that orders of the Fora below are not sustainable for the reason that the Fora below have failed to appreciate that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient credit balance in the saving bank account of the complainant was on account of inadvertent error i.e. the amount deposited on 09.05.2008 in the complainant''s account, due to mistake, was credited in the account of someone else.

We do not find any merit in this contention. From the above admission of the petitioner it is evident that the subject cheque was dishonoured because of mistake on the part of the opposite party in making relevant credit entry in the wrong account in instead of the account of the complainant. The Fora below have rightly concluded that the opposite party/petitioner was deficient in service and their orders cannot be faulted. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any reason to intervene in concurrent finding of the Fora below in exercise of revisoinal jurisdiction.

Revision petition is dismissed.