Tribunals and Commissions(2001) 09 NCDRC CK 0017

UCO BANK vs MISALKAR

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 24 September 2001 · Citation: 2002 3 CPJ 235

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S.Rane , V.K.Data J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 333 words
1.

HEARD the learned Advocate for appellant. Perused the material available before us in appeal paper-book. We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission itself.

2.

THE appellant UCO Bank is the opposite party No. 1 in the aforesaid complaint and it has taken exception to the order dated 31.7.2001 of that Forum whereby the District Forum has held the Bank being deficient in rendering service to the respondent/complainant with regard to the return of the documents pertaining to the auto-rickshaw of the complainant. It is noticed that the complainant had obtained a loan from the Bank and as he committed default in repayment of loan instalment that the Bank effected seizure of auto-rickshaw along with relevant documents such as R.T.O. Licence, T.C., T.P., etc.

It so transpired that after some time the complainant arranged to pay the loan instalments, which were then due and the Bank released the auto-rickshaw by delivering the same to the complainant. However, the original documents, which were seized as mentioned above were not handed over to the complainant, simultaneously with auto-rickshaw. The same was delivered after 3 months.

3.

THE complainant approached the District Forum with the grievance that one important document viz., Road-Permit seized was not delivered. We enquired from the learned Advocate, whether proper inventory for that matter list of seized documents was made or not and he answered in negative. It is to be stated that least that was expected from the Bank that in the transaction of such nature, it is necessary to exercise due precaution required to be taken in the Banking business. This was not done. According to us, the same would certainly constitute deficiency in service. The District Forum has considered all these facts and has saddled the Bank with the payment of compensation and cost and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order is justifiable. No merits. Appeal stands dismissed. Copies of the order to be supplied to parties. Appeal dismissed.