IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 269/09 DATED 30.09.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Ayub Ahmed Khan, <br /> No.63, M.G.Road, 2nd Cross Eat<br /> Udayagiri, Mysore-19.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.K.S.Maanu, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Party The Manager,<br /> ICICI Bank,<br /> Kuvempunagar Branch,<br /> Mysore.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Sri. Gerald Castelino, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 24.07.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.08.2009<br /> Date of order : 30.09.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 9 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint, claiming a sum of Rs.60,000/-, compensation in respect of loss of a cheque by the opposite party in transit. <br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, the complainant was to receive a sum of Rs.90,428/- from Western Union, which had issued a cheque dated 03.06.2009. Complainant deposited that cheque with the opposite party. The cheque was lost by the bank in transit. The complainant approached the opposite party many a times in this regard. Finally, opposite party issued a letter, stating that it has been lost. It is alleged that the opposite party is careless in resolving the issue. The complainant approached the cheque issuing bank and the matter is still unresolved. The complainant suffered financially and also lot of stress. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version, has contended that it deals with thousands of clearance cheques everday. The cheque of the complainant was lost during transit. Unfortunately, it was not traced. No loss has been caused to the complainant. The complainant can get duplicate cheque. The loss of cheque is not deliberate and intentional. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the opposite party, Manager has filed her affidavit. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- It is admitted fact that, the complainant had given the cheque for Rs.90,428/- to the opposite party bank for collection. Admittedly, it has been lost in transit. The complainant alleges in spite of repeated approach to the opposite party, matter was not resolved and hence, there is deficiency in the service.<br /> <br /> 8. Advocate for the complainant has relied on the rulings reported in (2008) CPJ 535, II (2008) CPJ 1, and III (2007) CPJ 28. The Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission in these rulings have held that loss of cheque in transit amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the contention of the opposite party that, it was not deliberate or intentional, is no ground.<br /> <br /> 9. The opposite party has contended that, the complainant can obtain duplicate cheque. That is true, and during the pendency of the complaint, as submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant, duplicate cheque was obtained and that the complainant got it encashed. But, merely because, duplicate, cheque can be obtained, the opposite party bank cannot absolve its liability in respect of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. It is contended by the opposite party that, the complainant has not proved any loss. Considering the facts, actual proof of loss is not necessary. It cannot be denied that a person, who is not entitled to get the cheque encashed in time, certainly will suffer loss or damage in various respect. Considering the damage or compensation awarded by the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission in the rulings cited supra, we are of the opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- will meet the ends of justice. <br /> <br /> 11. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation within a month from the date of this order. On failure to pay the amount within the said time, it will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.<br /> 3. The opposite party further, shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th September 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />