STATE BANK OF INDIA vs JUNAID AHMED

IA/9222/2016

Since the Applicant is present in person, this application, seeking exemption from personal appearance, is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. REVISION PETITION

By this Revision Petition, the State Bank of India (for short "the Bank"), calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Appeal No.137/2004. By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 7.7.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, Guwahati (for short "the District Forum") in C.D. Case No.63/2003 and accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, the State Commission has directed the Bank to pay an amount of 2,20,000/-, i.e. the cheque amount withdrawn by a third party from the account of the Complainant by using a stolen cheque. The State Commission has also directed that if the said amount is not paid within two months from the date of receipt of copy of its order, the Bank shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount, from the expiry of the said period till the date of realization.

We have heard learned counsel for the Bank and the Complainant, who is appearing in person and have also perused the documents on record.

At the outset, we are astonished to note that both the Forums below had proceeded to adjudicate on the subject dispute without even having a glance at the original cheque leaf, which was allegedly issued to withdraw money from Complainant''s account, the very foundation of the Complaint. Although the Bank filed the report obtained by it from a handwriting expert, which was disputed by the Complainant but for the reasons best known to it, the cheque in question, which was in the possession of the Bank, was not placed on record. In light of the stated factual scenario, the ideal option would be to remand the case back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication on the Complaint.

However, having regard to the fact that the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2004, by the Complainant who claims to be aged about 80 years, it would neither be expedient nor desirable to exercise the said option, more so when it appears to be a case of contributory negligence. In the first instance, the Complainant did not inform the Bank about the lost/missing cheque and later the Bank also cleared a high denomination cheque in routine. Under the circumstances and bearing in mind the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. Gurnam Singh - (2010) 13 SCC 775, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be sub-served if without going into the merits of the rival stands, the Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction that on release of the amount deposited by the Bank in this Commission in terms of order dated 31.5.2012, being 50% of the amount awarded as compensation, along with interest, if accrued, the claim of the Complainant against the Bank shall stand satisfied.

The amount so deposited shall be released to the Complainant forthwith.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.