Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/38

VIJAYA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MACH TRADE WINGS - Opp.Party(s)

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 18.08.2015

First Appeal No. 38/2011

(Arising out of the order dated 21.12.2010 passed in complaint case No. 92/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

Vijaya Bank

(A Govt. of India undertaking)

Vijaya Building

Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001

Through its constituted attorney                                       Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s Mach Trade Wings

4Q3 UN 3 W

DCM Building

16, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001

Through its Proprietor Mr. Akshay Gupta                 Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                     -                      Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                      Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 21.12.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VI, New Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum directed the OP/appellant herein to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,29,651/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 12.12.2004 till the date of realisation. Litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/- were also awarded.
2.      In brief, the complainant Sh. Akshay Gupta, the Sole Proprietor of M/s Mach Trade Wings was having current account with OP Bank. Complainant issued three cheques dt. 04.10.2004, 06.11.2004 and 06.12.2004 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 29,651/- respectively. Vide his letter dt. 18.09.2004 the complainant asked the OP to ‘stop payment’. OP bank deducted the amount of Rs. 60/- from the bank account of the complainant towards charges for ‘stop payment’.
3.      The OP bank admitted having received request from the complainant on 18.09.2004 for ‘stopping payments’ of all the three cheques. The contention put forth by the OP bank is that the complainant is a commercial entity and as such is not a ‘consumer’. Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint observing all the three cheques were the postdated cheques and after having received the notice dt. 18.09.2004 from the complainant, the OP bank had ample time to honour the request of the complainant. The OP bank despite the request dt. 18.09.2004 made the payment of Rs. 1,29,651/- on presenting of the two cheques.
4.      To a query put forth by this Commission on the point as to if any letter was written by the complainant not to honour his notice dt. 18.09.2004. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant herein stated that there were oral instructions from the side of the complainant. The plea thus raised by the appellant herein does not inspire confidence. It is simply an alibi. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
5.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
6.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

144616126. MEMBER