CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

PRAKASH R. SHENIA vs Syndicate Bank

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 10 December 1993 · Citation: 1994 1 CPC 504 : 1994 1 CPR 582 : 1995 2 CPJ 12

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.G.Loney , M.G.Gavai , Elipe Dharma Rao J.
RESULT
Ordered accordingly
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 377 words
1.

HEARD Shri T.N. Tripathi, Advocate for the complainant and Ms. D''lima, Advocate for the opposite party. The order passed by this Commission dated 19.5.93 in Complaint No. 171 /93 has not been complied with by opposite party i.e. Syndicate Bank so far. By an order dated 6.12.1993 we have held Syndicate Bank guilty under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and the time was granted to the opposite party for hearing on the point of sentence on 8.12.1993 on 8.12.1993 it was represented by the opposite party that they are facing action from their client to deposit the amount in Court by . In view of the said statement, the miscellaneous application was posted today for final order. Even today the Syndicate Bank has failed to comply with the order passed by this Commission. It is stated by the learned Advocate for the opposite party that the General Manager of Syndicate Bank is out of station and therefore no decision can be taken as regards the payment to be given to the complainant. This is totally in disregard to the undertaking given, .by the Advocate for the opposite party on 8.12.1993. We therefore heard the parties on the point of sentence.

2.

ACCORDING to Shri Tripathi, the Syndicate Bank has shown utter disregard while complying the order of this Commission, not on one occasion but on six occasions and therefore, the maximum penalty as provided under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act be imposed on the Syndicate Bank. There is six months delay in complying the order of this Commission. The Advocate for the opposite party has submitted that they will be granted further time to make payment which we do not agree. In view, the statement made by Shri Tripathi, Advocate for the complainant is correct and under the factual circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to impose the maximum penalty as provided under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence we pass the following order: The opposite party i.e. Syndicate Bank, Ghatkopar Branch is held guilty under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-within a week time from today, failing which further action would be taken against Syndicate Bank. Ordered accordingly.