Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Revision is directed against the Order dated 18-02-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata in C.C. No. 757/2014.

By such Revision, it is stated by the Revisionist that Pune Office of the Insurance Company, with a view to settle the matter outside the Court, sent two cheques to the Respondent/Complainant and the Respondent/Complainant, moving an application before the Ld. District Forum sought due leave to encash the said cheques.  Meanwhile, the Kolkata Office of the Insurance Company handed over two cheques to the Respondent/Complainant through its Ld. Advocate.  When the incident of double payment  came to surface, the Ld. Advocate intimated the matter to her client over phone.  It is further stated that inadvertently the Insurance company directed concerned banks to stop payment of both sets of cheques. Being outraged, the Respondent/Complainant filed a petition u/s 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for a direction upon the Revisionist to depute its competent person to appear before the Ld. District Forum personally and explain the situation that led to issuance of stop payment advice in respect of both sets of cheques and the Ld. District Forum allowed such petition vide its order dated 22-12-2015. It is further stated that on 08-01-2016, the Respondent/Complainant acknowledged receipt of two fresh cheques/demand drafts of equivalent sum, which have also been encashed by him.  However, the Ld. District Forum still not closed the matter and insisted on the personal appearance of the competent person of the Revisionist to explain  the situation.  Hence, this Revision.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record carefully.

Undisputedly, the Respondent/Complainant received two fresh Demand Drafts in lieu of two cheques against which stop payment advice was made by the Revisionist.  It is also not in dispute that the Respondent/Complainant has encashed the said two Demand Drafts.  Keeping in mind the volunteer act of the Revisionist to amicably settle the dispute, there seems no reason to suspect its bona fide that led to issuance of stop payment advice in respect of both sets of cheques issued earlier. 

Further, given that the Respondent/Complainant has received the payment, there seems no plausible ground to linger the matter further.  We, therefore, deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order whereupon the Ld. District Forum directed the Revisionist to depute its competent person to explain the previous goof up personally.

The Revision, accordingly, stands allowed.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.