CC Filed on 22.12.2009<br /> Disposed on 13.10.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 13th day of October 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 195/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> N. Pushpa Valli,<br /> # 169, 1st Type,<br /> BEML Nagar,<br /> K.G.F – 563 115.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Service Bankers S.B.M.,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Near Majestic,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. State Bank of Mysore,<br /> BEML Nagar Branch,<br /> BEML Nagar,<br /> K.G.F – 563115.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Advocate for OP.2 Sri. N. Sreedhara Murthy)<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Secretary,<br /> Board of Technical Examination,<br /> Palace Road,<br /> Bangalore – 01. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,080/- with costs and interest, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. From the contents of complaint and the documents produced by complainant the material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant received a cheque dated 15.03.2008 issued by OP.3 drawn on S.B.M Treasury Branch, Bangalore for Rs.4,080/- towards certain T.A. & D.A. payable to her for having attended evaluation of answer papers. The complainant handed over that cheque for collection to OP.2 on or about 14.03.2008. It appears on 15.03.2008 OP.2 sent this cheque along with some other instruments to OP.1 for collection, through Professional Courier, K.G.F. After few days the complainant found that the proceeds of her cheque was not credited to her S.B. Account maintained with OP.2. She made several representations and ultimately she was advised by letter dated 24.04.2009 by OP.2 to obtain another cheque from OP.3 stating that the cheque in question has been lost along with other bunch of instruments sent on that day in the same envelop. <br /> <br /> 3. It is alleged that the complainant approached OP.3 but they stated that the issue of cheque system has been stopped and it was not possible to issue another cheque for the same amount. She intimated the said fact to OP.2. Again there were some correspondence between OP.1 and OP.2, but the cheque was not realized.<br /> <br /> 4. The complaint is filed by complainant in person. Originally OP.3 was not added as a party. After going through the facts of the case, we suggested to implead OP.3 and a notice was sent to OP.3. A representative of OP.3 appeared and he was advised to issue another cheque for the same amount or to pay the amount in cash to complainant, though the practice of issue of cheque was stopped. He intimated to persuade his superiors and ultimately cheque dated 02.08.2010 for Rs.4,080/- drawn in favour of complainant was handed over to this Forum. The said cheque has been received by the complainant on 30.08.2010. <br /> <br /> 5. OP.2 appeared and filed version, admitting the receipt of cheque from complainant for collection and contended that the said cheque has been found lost during transit and thereafter the complainant was advised to obtain another cheque for the same amount. However we found that OP.2 had not produced any acknowledgement obtained from courier service to show that the envelop addressed to OP.1 in question was lost during transit. OP.1 remained absent and is placed ex-parte. <br /> <br /> 6. In the above developments and the facts and circumstances the question that arises for our consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any costs and compensation, if so who should pay the same. <br /> <br /> 7. As already noted OP.2 has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the instruments sent under courier was lost in transit. If that was the case the courier service could be held liable for costs and compensation. In the absence of that documentary evidence it is quite possible to infer that the instruments sent through courier must have reached the addressee and the addressee had misplaced or lost it for one or other reason. In one of the letters dated 12.12.2008 written by OP.2 to OP.1, it is stated that “acknowledgement for delivery at your Branch is being enclosed.” This letter was written to OP.1 requesting to make a thorough verification regarding the say of OP.1 that cheque was lost in transit. This fact also shows that the cheque must have been lost/misplaced when it was in the custody of OP.1. Admittedly OP.2 had sent the cheque in question and some other instruments to OP.1 for collection through courier. OP.1 and OP.2 are different branches of State Bank of Mysore. Therefore we think OP.1 and OP.2 may be directed to pay the costs and compensation to complainant for the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think a sum of Rs.1,000/- may be ordered to be paid to complainant towards costs and compensation. There was delay of nearly two years for realizing the amount by complainant. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP.1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs and compensation to complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 13th day of October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />