9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esident - The challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned District Forum, Kangar at Dharamshala dated 28-12-1996, whereby the appellant (the State Bank of India) has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as compensation and costs of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant. 2. The brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the original o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome to the conclusion that the application submitted by the complainant together with the demand draft amounting to Rs. 4,000 was received in the Mail Section of State Bank of India, Bombay on 21-2-1994 i.e. well before the date of opening of the issue on 23-2-1994. It has further been found by the District Forum that the State Bank of India did not remit the application together with demand dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the prospective investor cannot be a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. 6. We regret we are unable to accept this contention, as facts of this case are distinguishable. In this case, the question whether merely a prospec- tive investor could be a consumer, was considered by the Supreme Court and the Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Company for collection of application alongwith the requisite money for prospective allotment of snares and the complainant was beneficiary of such an arrangement and as such he clearly falls within the definition of 'consumer' under section 2(1 ) ( d )( ii ) of the Act and the Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain such dispute against the Bank under the Act. These observations squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,000 awarded by District Forum, which seems to be on excessive side is reduced to Rs. 1,000. 9. In the light of what is discussed above, the appeal of the appellant State Bank of India partly succeeds and that accordingly the appellant-State Bank of India shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000 instead of Rs. 2,000 as compensation alongwith costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
