STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (APPEAL NO.53 OF 2009) Date of Institution:23.01.2009 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 1. American Express Banking Corp. (Formerly Known as : American Express Bank Limited), Cyber City Tower C, DLF Building #8, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon through its Country Manager. 2. Centrum Direct Limited, through its Regional Head, B-33, Connaught Palace, New Delhi. 3. Centrum Direct Limited, through its Area Manager, Foreign Exchange Division, SCO #40-41, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160 017. 4. American Express Banking Corp, through its Manager, #175, Liverpool Street, GPO, Box 1582, Sydney NSW 1131. 5. American Express Banking Corp, through its President and CEO, American Express Tower, Word Financial Centre, New York, U.S.A. ……Appellants. VersusSh. Kuldip Singh S/o Sh. Mukund Singh, R/o VPO Lohara, District Moga (Punjab). ....Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the respondent. (APPEAL NO.52 OF 2009) Date of Institution:23.01.2009 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 1. American Express Banking Corp. (Formerly Known as : American Express Bank Limited), Cyber City Tower C, DLF Building #8, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon through its Country Manager. 2. Centrum Direct Limited, through its Regional Head, B-33, Connaught Palace, New Delhi. 3. Centrum Direct Limited, through its Area Manager, Foreign Exchange Division, SCO #40-41, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160 017. 4. American Express Banking Corp, through its Manager, #175, Liverpool Street, GPO, Box 1582, Sydney NSW 1131. 5. American Express Banking Corp, through its President and CEO, American Express Tower, Word Financial Centre, New York, U.S.A. ……Appellants. Versus Sh. Harjinder Singh S/o Sh. Malkit Singh, R/o VPO Badhni Kalan, District Moga (Punjab). ....Respondent. Argued by: Sh. Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the respondent. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This order will dispose of two connected appeals listed below filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 10.10.2008 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) directing the OPs/appellants in both the cases to issue duplicate travelers cheques to the tune of 8000 USD each and to pay interest @10% per annum after two months from the date of claim made by the complainant till the date of payment subject to execution of indemnity in the form of refund claim form (Annexure C-12) and further to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants/ respondents for harassment along with litigation cost of Rs.3,500/- in each case. 1.FA No.52 of 2009 – American Express Banking Corp. etc. Vs. Harjinder Singh. 2. FA No.53 of 2009 – American Express Banking Corp etc. Vs. Kuldip Singh. 2. Sh. Kuldip Singh and Sh. Harjinder Singh, respondents/ complainants had purchased American Express Travelers Cheques of USD 8000 each from Area Manager, Centrum Direct Limited, Foreign Exchange Division, SCO No.40-41, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. The entry in this respect was made in their passports. Both of them visited Malaysia for attending the marriage ceremony of their friend Mr. Charanjit Singh’s daughter, which was scheduled for 19.8.2006. They boarded a Transnasional Bus from Singapore at around 10 P.M to Kuantan, Malaysia regarding which the bus ticket (Annexure C-5) was issued. They were lodged in Pacific Hotel. In the morning, they found that they had lost the traveler cheques. They reached Bus Company’s workshop at Semambu Industrial Estate, Kuantan and met the workshop supervisor who telephonically contacted the driver of the bus and his supervisor. They told the complainants that the bag/pouch containing their belongings was with the driver and would be returned to them. When the said bag/pouch was returned, the travelers cheques and the cash were missing there from. The complainants contacted the office of American Express at Malaysia on phone and narrated the entire episode. Subsequently, they were told to lodge a complaint with the police, which was lodged on 19.8.2006, copy of which is Annexure C-6. As per the appellants, all the necessary details asked from them were supplied to the OPs/appellants. They also visited their office in Kuala Lumpur for the issuance of fresh travelers cheques and incurred lot of expenses thereon but to no effect. Ultimately, the OPs expressed their inability to refund/make good the loss incurred by the complainants on account of theft/loss of travelers cheques. The claim was rejected on the ground that the information and documents provided by them were conflicting. The complainants, therefore, filed two separate complaints before the learned District Forum. For the facility of reference, the facts are being taken from the complaint filed by Sh. Kuldip Singh. 3. It was alleged by the complainant/respondent that there was no contradiction in the facts and the documents supplied by him to the OPs/appellants; that when no cash was available with him, he had to perpetually live on the funds provided by other people and that he had replied to all the queries raised by the OPs/appellants but they were still putting queries with a view to deny his claim and harass him. The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint seeking refund of the sum equivalent to USD 8000 in Indian Rupees along with interest @18% per annum from 18.8.2006 and Rs.10 Lacs as compensation for mental harassment and trouble besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 4. The complaints were opposed by the OPs/appellants alleging that the complainant failed to provide information and documents asked for and therefore, violated the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement. The contradictions given by the complainant were that somewhere, he said that on his arrival, he was lodged in Pacific Hotel but in the police report, he told that he was taken to the house of Sh. Charanjit Singh. He had mentioned that the pouch containing the travelers cheques was kept in the front seat pocket of the bus but the same was found from the overhead compartment by the driver of the bus. According to him, there was cash in the pouch but no such cash was found by the driver. He had also alleged having borrowed money from one Malagar Singh to purchase the travelers cheques, which were returned long after, but again he told that the amount was paid to Malagar Singh even before purchasing the travelers cheques and due to these contradictions, his story of loss of travelers cheques was not found to be correct and the refund was not allowed. It was, however, admitted that travelers cheques had not been encashed so far. 5. Both the parties were given opportunity by the learned District Forum to file reply and lead evidence. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed both the complaints vide orders dated 10.10.2008 as reproduced above. The OPs have challenged the same through this appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaints. According to him, OPs have no office at Chandigarh whereas the travelers cheques were lost in Malaysia and therefore, no part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh to file this complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants/OPs has referred to the case of I.J.S. Ahluwalia Vs. American Express Travel Related Services, 2004 (1) C.P.C 143. In that case, the petitioner had claimed Rs.65,40,000/- from the respondents alleging that Madina Exchange Company, Hongkong had paid him US $ 49,500 on the instructions of his client with which he had purchased the travelers cheques. When he came to Bangkok, he lost the travelers cheques. In this manner, neither the travelers cheques were purchased in India nor those were lost in India. Moreover, the petitioner did not disclose the name of the remitter of the said amount and violated the professional ethic rules due to which the claim was declined. It is not so in the present case. The next case referred by the appellants/OPs is American Express Bank Limited Vs. Rajesh Gupta, 2000 (1) C.P.C. 316. In that case, the travelers cheques were purchased at Delhi; those were lost in Delhi; FIR was lodged with Delhi police but the complaint was filed at Calcutta. The third case cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2010 (1) C.P.C. 379. In that case, the godown of the appellant, which caught fire, was at Ambala. It was insured at Ambala but the complaint was filed at Chandigarh. In both these cases, no part of cause of action had accrued at Calcutta and Chandigarh respectively due to which the complaints could not be filed at those places. It is not so in the present case because the travelers cheques were admittedly purchased from OP No.3 vide Annexure C-1 who has his office at Chandigarh. The payment of the amount was to be made to the complainant at Chandigarh. We cannot expect the complainant to again go to file a complaint in Malaysia for claiming compensation for the loss of travelers cheques from the OPs/appellants because they had gone there only to attend the marriage of the daughter of their friend. 9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there were contradictions in the statements given by the complainant, which showed that his story about the loss of travelers cheques was not true. We, however, find that these are minor omissions here and there, which do not effect the basic facts of the case. It is admitted that the complainant had gone to Malaysia; he had purchased travelers cheques worth Rs.8000/- from OP No.3; the travelers cheques have not so far been encashed either by the complainant or by anybody else; he traveled by a bus in which he left the pouch containing the travelers cheques; when the said pouch was detected by the driver of the bus he found that the travelers cheques were missing therefrom, the complainant reported the matter to the OPs at Malaysia and on their directions, he lodged a complaint with the police. It is also a fact that the travelers cheques have not been so far traced out nor the complainants have been compensated for the loss thereof. If due to passage of time or due to fading of the memory, there were minor contradictions or omissions, that would not change the basic facts of the case showing that the travelers cheques have been lost. The OPs were, therefore, not justified in rejecting the claims on these frivolous grounds of contradictions. 10. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/OPs that some people while going to a foreign country sell the travelers cheques and on the other hand, lodge a false claim with them about their loss and get compensation. Subsequently, the travelers cheques are also got encashed thereby causing loss to the OPs/appellants due to which reason, the OPs are slow in accepting the claims of loss. We do not find any justification in this reasoning. If the travelers cheques are reportedly lost, the OPs get an indemnity bond from the complainant in view of which, he is liable to indemnify them if somebody else gets payment against the said cheques. In the present case, it is not so because even after passage of three years, nobody has got the travelers cheques encashed. Otherwise also, the refund of the travelers cheques cannot be denied on such fanciful stories or on conjectures and surmises coined by the OPs/appellants. The contention of the complainant is that in view of the impugned orders, he has also filed an indemnity before the executing Court but even inspite of that, the payment was not released to him. We do not find any justification for the OPs in withholding the payment of travelers cheques. 11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that the learned District Forum has ordered the payment of interest in addition to the compensation for harassment and litigation cost. It may be mentioned that the travelers cheques were purchased by the complainant more than three years back. The OPs have already received the amount from the complainants and are using the same and earning profits thereon. When the complainant requested for the refund or re issue of the travelers cheques, it was denied to him on fanciful grounds. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to interest on the said amount as ordered by the learned District Forum. 12. So far as compensation for harassment is concerned, it has been ordered in view of the harassment caused to the complainant. Needless to mention that the complainant was in a foreign country where he needed money to spend during his stay in the said country. When he reported the loss to the OPs/appellants, no prompt action was taken thereon to make good the said loss or to issue fresh travelers cheques, which could be issued to him on execution of indemnity bond. The complainant was, therefore, mentally and physically harassed and even thereafter he had to run from pillar to post to get back the said amount but it has no effect on the OPs/appellants. Ultimately, he had to file the present complaint to get back the same and therefore, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded to him for harassment is fully justified. 13. So far as the interest of the OPs/appellants is concerned, that has already been taken care of by the learned District Forum while allowing the present complaints in so far as the complainants have been directed to execute the indemnity in the form of refund claim form (Annexure C-12). In case, anybody claims the refund on the basis of the loss of travelers cheques, the interest of OPs/appellants has been fully safeguarded. 14. The order passed by the learned District Forum is quite in detail and takes care of all the issues raised by the parties. We are in full conformity with the same. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation cost in each appeal to the respective complainants. 16. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 28th September 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/- STATE COMMISSION (APPEAL NO.52 OF 2009) Argued by: Sh. Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the respondent. Dated the 28th day of September 2010. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal along with connected Appeal bearing No.53 of 2009 have been dismissed with cost of Rs.5,500/- each. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) MEMBER | (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) PRESIDENT |
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (APPEAL NO.52 OF 2009) Date of Institution:23.01.2009 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 1. American Express Banking Corp. (Formerly Known as : American Express Bank Limited), Cyber City Tower C, DLF Building #8, DLF City, Phase II, Gurgaon through its Country Manager. 2. Centrum Direct Limited, through its Regional Head, B-33, Connaught Palace, New Delhi. 3. Centrum Direct Limited, through its Area Manager, Foreign Exchange Division, SCO #40-41, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160 017. 4. American Express Banking Corp, through its Manager, #175, Liverpool Street, GPO, Box 1582, Sydney NSW 1131. 5. American Express Banking Corp, through its President and CEO, American Express Tower, Word Financial Centre, New York, U.S.A. ……Appellants. Versus Sh. Harjinder Singh S/o Sh. Malkit Singh, R/o VPO Badhni Kalan, District Moga (Punjab). ....Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the respondent. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.53 of 2009 titled as ‘American Express Banking Corp. and others Vs. Sh. Kuldip Singh’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,500/-. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 28th September 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
