NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2350 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 05/08/2006 in Appeal No. 574/2005 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. SOHAN LAL BANCE12, WHATELEY ROAD WAST DULWICH LANDON SE 22. 9. DB -
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. CITIBANK N.A. AND ANR.P.O. BOX 4848. ANNA SALAI POST OFFICE SHANNAI 600002
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
MR. YAKESH ANAND
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 20 Jul 2010
ORDER
Heard Counsel for the petitioner who has submitted before us that the compensation awarded is too inadequate inasmuch as the petitioner had to incur expenses for coming to India from London in order to sort out the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and had to stay in Delhi as well as in Chandigarh for which, adequate compensation is required to be paid. The respondents were duly informed for todays date, but in spite of service by registered A.D., no appearance has been put in on behalf of the OPs. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is maintaining NRI Account with the OPs and on 28.4.1999, he had issued a cheque in favour of Mrs. Ravi Lal for a sum of Rs.98,500/- and at that time the petitioner had sufficient balance in his NRI account. On 8.5.1999, Mrs. Ravi Lal had presented the above cheque with her Bank for clearing, but the same was returned by the bank on account of insufficient fund. Mrs. Ravi Lal contacted the petitioner and informed him about the dishonour of the cheque. The complainant contacted the OP Branch in London and after confirmation from Delhi Branch, the Bank admitted their mistake and requested that the cheque be presented again for encashment. Accordingly, Mrs. Ravi Lal again presented the cheque with the bank. Once again the cheque was not honoured and was returned to Mrs. Ravi Lal. After about 2 years, the complainant came to India and was informed by Mrs. Ravi Lal that the cheque had not been encashed and she humiliated and insulted the petitioner. Not only that the cheque was dishonoured, but OP had wrongly debited in the account of the petitioner the said sum of Rs.98,500/- along with other bank charges. On 2.6.2001, the OP reversed the entry of Rs.98,500/-, but expenses amounting to Rs.1699.60 ps were not adjusted. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The claim for travel to India was rejected. The complainant filed appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum and maintained the order of the District Forum, but awarded Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation in addition to the compensation awarded by the District Forum. The complainant had initially sent legal notice dated 16.10.2001 from London stating that he had to go to India for sorting out the matter and a sum of Rs.4,000/- was sought for stay in hotel in Delhi besides claim for air ticket and other charges paid by him. The petitioner sent another legal notice dated 4.5.2002 in which it was also stated that the petitioner had to visit India twice and stay for months to sort out the matter. In this notice, a sum of Rs.30,000 was claimed for stay in hotel in Delhi and other expenses. The petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- in this notice. In subsequent notice dated 11.7.2002, the compensation claimed is Rs.7,00,000/-. Ultimately, the claim for Rs.5,00,000/- was filed. This shows as to how the claim for compensation can be manipulated and exaggerated. Admittedly, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of Mrs.Ravi Lal had been dishonoured on presentation even though there was sufficient balance in the account of the petitioner. After the petitioner talked to the London branch of the bank, the mistake was admitted and the petitioner was asked to request Mrs.Ravi Lal to present the cheque again. On presentation of the said cheque, the cheque was again dishonoured which is rather a serious matter in view of the fact that the cheque was presented as sought by the OP even though the same was earlier also dishonoured. The petitioner had to certainly face humiliation and loss of reputation on account of dishonour of the cheque second time. The deficiency on the part of the OP was further compounded when the amount of the said cheque to the tune of Rs.98,500/- was debited in the account of the petitioner even though the cheque had not been cleared. The reverse entry relating to said debit of Rs.98,500/- was made only in June, 2001. A sum of Rs. 8139.60 ps by way of 4% interest on the sum of Rs.98,500/- was credited in the account of complainant. The OP had also credited a sum of Rs.1,699.60 ps. which was charged as service charges in respect of the said cheque which were subsequently reversed. Repeated deficiency in service amounts to gross deficiency for which the petitioner has to be adequately compensated. However, the compensation relating to claim of the complainant that he had to stay for months in Delhi and Chandigarh and had to come twice for sorting out the matter cannot be allowed. There was no need to come to Delhi for sorting out the matter and if the OPs did not sort out the matter even in spite of efforts made with the London branch, the petitioner could have filed the complaint in the District Forum. In our opinion, the fora below have rightly disallowed the compensation for the expenses for travelling to India and stay in the hotels. However, on account of grave deficiency on the part of the OPs, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a total lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- would be quite reasonable, fair and equitable as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum and additional sum of Rs.10,000/- granted by the State Commission. In view of the above, the revision is partly allowed. The complainant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which includes compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the State Commission as litigation expenses. The complainant shall be entitled to 6% interest on compensation from the date of filing of complaint till the said amount is paid. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
