Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(d)(ii) - case referred: 1991 (1) cpr 340. comparative citation: 1992 (2) cpj 1029

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

k.p. sinha, member: 1. this is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned district forum, sitamarhi in the complaint case no. 2 of 90 before them. 2. the facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing nos. 114325 to 114328 for rs. 2,500/- each from the sitamarhi branch of the central bank of india on 6.7.90. these traveller cheques were lost by her as her briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the frontier mail in which she was travelling. the complainant thereafter sent telegram from delhi on 12.7.90 to the branch manager, central bank of india, sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

K.P. Sinha, Member:

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1114496',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
			'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
			'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.P. Sinha, Member:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1114496',
		(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Central Bank of India Vs Parween Nayak - Citation 1114496 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1114496',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 82 of 1991 ',
		'appellant' => 'Central Bank of India',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Central Bank of India Vs. Parween Nayak.',
		'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)(ii) -<br/> <br/> Case Referred: <br/> 1991 (1) CPR 340.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1029',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '1992-09-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT, 
K.P. SINHA, MEMBER &amp; 
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER.',
		'judgement' => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.</p><p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.</p><p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.</p><p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.</p><p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.</p><p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.</p><p> Appeal dismissed with costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Parween Nayak.',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1114496',
	(int) 1 => 'central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114496/central-bank-india-vs-parween-nayak'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>K.P. Sinha, Member:<p> 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No. 2 of 90 before them.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos. 114325 to 114328 for Rs. 2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 3. We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 4. The main point which the appellant has urged is that the respondent did not lodged any FIR with the police for the theft of the traveller cheques; neither at the initial stage when the theft occured nor on 23.3.91 or thereafter when the Branch Manager wrote to the complainant to lodge FIR even at that point of time. It has also been urged that since the traveller cheques were purchased free of any charge the respondent was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). Admittedly the respondent was an account holder of Central Bank of India and the very fact that she was an account holder made her a consumer as defined u/S. 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The State Commission, Madras in the case of A.P. Narayanan v. The Manager, United Commercial Bank reported in Consumer Protection Reporter of September, 1991, page-340 have hold that “It does not admit of any doubt that the provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant who has hired the banking services of the O.P. by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is undoubtedly a consumer as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. The complaint is clearly maintainable.” We see no reason to disagree with this view. In the present case the complainant was already an account holder of the Bank and she purchased Traveller Cheques from the bank. The fact that the Bank did not charge any commission for the purchase of traveller cheques may be termed as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Bank towards the customer who was an account holder. It also may be in the nature of a for non account holders to open accounts in the bank for availing of this and other such facilities which the banking service provides. Further as per their own affidavit filed on 23.7.92 the bank started charging commission for issuing traveller cheques vide Circular No. CO- 90-91/92 dated 28.7.90. The charging or otherwise on commission for the issuing of traveller cheques is not a very material fact for the account holder who is already a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therefore, entitled to avail of the facilities given by the Bank.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 5. As regards the facts of the case we have already mentioned above that the Bank has been insisting on the fact that no FIR was filed for the theft. The lady (respondent) has said that she got so nervous aad perplaxed on account of the, theft that it did not occur to her to lodge a FIR. She ignored the advice of the Bank in March, 91 to lodge a FIR even at that stage because a lot of time had elapsed since the date of occurrence and she was legally advised that no purposes would be served by the lodging a FIR after such a delay. While the anxiety of the Bank for the safety of its fends is understandable. We fail to see as to why the bank could not have achieved the objective of ensuring the safty of its fends by an affidavit to insulate the bank against any malafide claim. It is seen from the annexure to the written pleadings of the Respondent that the State Bank of India, Sitamarhi, Bazar Branch credited the account of the Respondent on 17.9.90 maintained with that bank against the Traveller cheques lost by her which were purchased from that bank after obtaining affidavit and the Indemnity Bond with two securities. We fail to see why the Central Bank of India could not have done likewise. Further in Paragraph 4 of the appeal memo the Bank has stated that no refund is made by the Bank till seven months from the date of issue of the Traveller Cheques when these are reported have not been lost. We fail to see that why the Bank did not refund the amount to the respondent after the expiry of the period of seven months. We do not, therefore, find any thing wrong in the orders of the District Forum that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be refunded to her with interest @ 12% after respondent has filed the necessary affidavit along with Indemnity Bond as desired by the District Forum.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 6. As regards the award of compensation it is clear from the discussions above that there has been an commission, negligence or default of the officers of the bank causing inconvenience to the respondent. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act and as such compensation is clearly allowable. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact the respondent in his submission before us argued that for the loss and physical harassment she should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. This prayer of the respondent cannot be considered in the absence of any appeal having been filed by her against the orders of the District Forum. There is no provision for cross objection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any merit in the appeal filed before us which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as costs to the respondent over and above the amounts directed to be paid to her by the District Forum.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109