STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through Shri Rajesh Bhatia, Manager Legal.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi, resident of House No.127, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.  
      

              ....Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the majority order dated 16.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OP to: -

(i)    credit a sum of Rs.28,000/- in the SB A/C No.00351500000542 of the complainant along with the usual rate of interest on Savings Account from the date of respective withdrawals vide cheques bearing No.105336 (infact 015336), 958142, 958148 and 958149;

 (ii) pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

(iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation;

This order be complied with by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.58,000/- i.e. (Rs.28,000 + Rs.30,000)  along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.04.2010 till actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.             One Member of the District Forum, recorded the dissenting order, to the extent of declining compensation and cost of litigation.

3.             The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant, employed one Ms. Harpreet Kaur, as Computer Operator-cum-Accounts Clerk. In the ordinary course of business, and, as a matter of convenience, he used to keep his cheques, as also the cheque book of his wife in the office. In the month of April 2008, he found that some amount had been withdrawn, through self drawn cheques, from his account. He, thus, made enquiries, and came to know that Ms. Harpreet Kaur, aforesaid, forged his signatures, on those cheques, and withdrew the amount. The enquiries revealed that Ms. Harpreet Kaur, had stolen few other cheques, out of which, she utilized four cheques bearing nos. 015336 in the sum of Rs.14,000/-, 958142 in the sum of Rs.4,000/-, 958148, in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and 958149 in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, and withdrew the amount on 16.04.2008, 01.02.2008, 12.03.2008 and 14.02.2008, respectively. It was stated that the complainant, had given his specimen signatures, at the time of opening the saving bank account, with the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the employees of the Opposite Party, did not compare the signatures, on the cheques, aforesaid, with the specimen signatures of the complainant, and cleared the same (cheques), despite the fact that there was a difference in the said signatures. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, clearing of the aforesaid cheques, by the Opposite Party, and debiting of the amounts, referred to above, to the account of the complainant, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, by it (Opposite Party). It was further stated that the Opposite Party was, many a time, asked to credit the amount of the cheques, to the account of the complainant, pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and cost of litigation, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming the refund of amount of Rs.28,000/-, of the cheques wrongly encashed, due to the negligence of the Opposite Party; Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.             The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that complaint in respect of three cheques bearing numbers 958142, in the sum of Rs.4,000/-, 958148, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, and 958149, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, the amount whereof was withdrawn on 01.02.2008, 12.03.2008 and 14.02.2008, respectively, was palpably barred by time. It was further pleaded that since the allegations of fraud and fabrication, were leveled by the complainant, the same could not be decided by the Consumer Fora, in summary proceedings, and only the Civil Court could properly determine the same. It was further pleaded that, as such, the Consumer Fora, had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was, however, admitted that the complainant was having his saving bank account, with the Opposite Party, as mentioned, in the complaint. It was also admitted that the complainant, had given his specimen signatures, at the time of opening the saving bank account. It was stated that the signatures of the complainant, on the cheques, in question, were duly tallied, with his specimen signatures, on the Account Opening Form, and, only thereafter, the same, were encashed. It was further stated that the complainant, had duly authorized Ms. Harpreet Kaur, to get the cheques encashed, from the Opposite Party. It was further stated that since the signatures on the cheques, aforesaid, of the complainant, were similar to his specimen signatures, on the Account Opening Form, after taking due care and caution, the said cheque were cleared. It was further stated that neither any notice was issued to the Opposite Party, nor any claim was lodged with it, with regard to the dispute, in question, prior to the filing of the instant complaint. It was further stated that, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that it had Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further held by the District Forum, that since it was proved, from the expert evidence, that the signatures on the cheques, in question, did not tally with the standard signatures of the complainant, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service.

7.             Ultimately the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10.          The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the complaint, with regard to three cheques bearing numbers 958142, in the sum of Rs.4,000/-,  958148, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, and 958149, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-,  in respect whereof,  the amount was withdrawn on 01.02.2008, 12.03.2008 and 14.02.2008, respectively, was palpably barred by time, but the District Forum, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, as per the details, given in the complaint, the amounts, referred to above, in relation to the cheques, were withdrawn on 01.02.2008, 12.03.2008 and 14.02.2008, respectively; however, the account holder could not come to know of the fraud or forgery, committed by Ms.Harpreet Kaur, immediately, on encashment of the cheques.  The account holder, could only come to know of such fraud or forgery, much after the encashment of the cheques. Even, in the complaint, the complainant stated that some time in April, 2008, he came to know, with regard to the fraud/forgery, committed by Ms. Harpreet Kaur. This fact was also corroborated by him, in his affidavit, submitted by him, by way of evidence. The complaint was filed on 09.04.2010. The cause of action, accrued to the complainant, for filing the complaint, as and when, he detected fraud and forgery, having been committed with him, by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, by encashing the cheques, by forging his signatures. There is no reason, not to believe the version, set up by the complainant, in the complaint, regarding the time, when he came to know of the forgery and fraud. As soon as he discovered the fraud and forgery, committed with him, by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, by encashing the cheques aforesaid, he immediately moved the District Forum, and filed the complaint, on 09.04.2010. The complaint, was, thus, filed within the period of 2 years, from the date of discovering fraud and forgery, by the complainant. The complaint, was, thus, not barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.          It was next submitted, by the Counsel for the appellant, that since the allegations of forgery and fabrication, were leveled by the complainant, the same could not be decided by the Consumer Fora, in summary proceedings. He further submitted that since the detailed evidence was required for proving the factum of forgery and fabrication, only the Civil Court, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, in the complaint, it was stated that Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Computer-cum-Accounts Clerk, aforesaid, forged the signatures of the complainant, on the cheques, in question, and withdrew the amount, from his account. The question arises, as to whether, mere allegations, leveled in the complaint, could be said to be sufficient, to oust the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The Consumer Foras, are established with the sole object to provide speedy, inexpensive and affordable redressal of the grievances of the Consumers. It may be stated here, that Section 3 of the Act, provides an additional remedy. In the complaint, it was averred by the complainant, that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, as it encashed the cheques, in question, presented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, aforesaid, without properly verifying his signatures, with his specimen signatures, which, on the other hand, had been forged by her (Mr. Harpreet Kaur). In J.J. Merchant (Dr.) V. Shrinath Chaturvedi, IV (2002) SLT 714 =III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) =2002 CTJ 757 (SC) (CP), relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent, the Hon`ble Supreme Court, held as under:-

“This submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, long-drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers, and that should not be curtailed, on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done, when some questions of fact are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards”.

12.          In CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. V. Development Credit Bank Ltd. V (2003) SLT 185=III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC)=2003 CTJ 84 (SC) (CP), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“It cannot be denied that Fora at the National Level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. These Foras have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Foras is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure, which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because reading of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved”.

13.          In Lalco Enterprises Vs. Union Bank Of India, III (2003) CPJ 42 (NC) the allegations were that 25 cheques, which had forged signatures of the account holder, were encashed by the Bank, and the amount was debited to the account of the account holder. The complainant, claimed the amount of cheques, which had been debited to the account of the account holder. On consideration of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Lalco Enterprises case(supra), dismissed the Revision Petition, by observing as under:-

“The question that arose before the District Forum was about the authenticity of the signatures of the withdrawal of the cheques. It was difficult for District Forum to go into the question of genuine signatures on each and every cheque and to get the report from the handwriting expert from either side. However, District Forum found that there was certainly discrepancy of 2 cheques and amount of those cheques was Rs. 18,320/-. It was on this account that complaint was partly allowed and Bank was directed to pay Rs. 18,320/- with interest therein @ 15% p.a. and Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission where the appeal was dismissed. Still feeling aggrieved, complainant has come before us. After examining the whole aspect of the matter, we feel that District Forum was rather generous to the complainant that had awarded the amount of two cheques. Since the Bank is not before us, we do not say anything on this subject. We do not find it a case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Revision Petition is dismissed”.

14.          Needless to mention here, that the District Forums, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, have been entertaining complaints, against the banks, on the allegations, that the latter have committed deficiency, in service, by encashing forged cheques and making payment of such cheques, not containing the signatures of the account holder or the cheque book, having been issued by the bank, on the basis of unauthorized requisition slips. In several cases, the allegation was that, this was done, with the connivance of the staff member(s) of the bank and/or the account holder. In some cases, criminal complaints were also lodged with the Police, which registered cases, and took up the investigation. In such cases, despite there being the allegations of fraud, forgery, cheating or conspiracy, the Consumer Foras were not dissuaded from entertaining the complaints and did not relegate the complainants to the Civil Court, merely because allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating were made. Merely because, in a complaint, based on the defect in goods or deficiency, in service, the Opposite Party, makes allegations of fraud, forgery or some other criminal act, in the process, it does not mean that the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, should automatically be ousted, in entertaining and dealing with such complaints. Besides, the standard of proof, required in a complaint, before the Consumer Fora, and that is required to establish the commission of criminal offence(s) before a Criminal Court, is not the same. While a complaint before the Consumer Fora, can be answered, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, the Criminal Court would insist on much stricter proof, to hold any person guilty of criminal charge. It may also be noted here that the outcome of the two actions, before the two Foras, is not dependent upon the findings of each other. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank, I (2010) CPJ 312 (NC). The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.  Mere fact, that the allegations of fraud and fabrication were levelled by the complainant, did not mean that the Consumer Fora, was not competent to entertain and decide the complaint. According to Section 13(4) of the Act, powers of Civil Court, in the matters, listed therein, are conferred upon the Consumer Foras. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that since the allegations of forgery and fabrication had been leveled, and that the detailed evidence was required to be led, the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, to decide the complaint was ousted under the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

15.          The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on Satish Chand Gosian & Anr. Vs. Canara Bank, II (2009) CPJ 31 and Raghuvir Singh, Vs. Branch Head, Axis Bank and another, 2010(4) CLT 134, in support of his contention, that when the allegations of fraud and fabrication, are leveled in the complaint, then the same (complaint), could not be decided by the Consumer Fora, as it was required to adopt summary procedure, and, on the other hand, it (Consumer Fora) should relegate the parties, to the Civil Court, for adjudication of the dispute. The facts of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Even, both the aforesaid cases were decided by this Commission. Any principle, of law, laid down, in the cases, referred to, in this paragraph, decided by this Commission, which is contrary to the principle of law, laid down, in J.J. Merchant (Dr.) and CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd`s cases (supra)  decided by the Apex Court, and Lalco Enterprises case (supra), decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, shall not hold the field.  In this view of the matter, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the cases, referred to, in this paragraph. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

16.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that since a criminal case, with regard to the said cheques, has already been registered, and the trial is pending in the criminal Court, the Consumer Fora, had no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. Section-3 of the Act, which reads as under, provides an additional remedy;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law:- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

17.          The mere fact that a criminal case is registered under the Indian Penal Code, against Ms. Harpreet Kaur, and the trial is pending against her, before the Criminal Court, did not debar the complainant, from seeking refund of the amount, with interest and compensation. Criminal Court cannot grant the reliefs, which are available to the complainant, under the Act, for deficiency, in rendering service, by the Opposite Party. Even otherwise, in a Criminal Court, the guilt of the accused is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence, whereas, a complaint under the Act, can be decided, on the preponderances of probabilities. Any order passed in a Consumer Complaint, by the Consumer Fora, the proceedings before which are summary in nature, shall not be binding upon the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court, is required to decide, as to whether, a particular person has committed a criminal offence, on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence or not. In Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs Universal Exports & Anr. IV(2011CPJ13(SC), it was observed as under ;

“In our view, the protection provided under the CP Act to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute. It does not extinguish the remedies under another Statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy.”

18.          The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, presents a clear answer, to the challenge, made by the Counsel for the appellant, to the order impugned, on the ground that, in the face of the registration of a criminal case, against Ms. Harpreet Kaur, and the pendency of trial, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable.  The principle of law, laid down in Trans Mediterranean Airways case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.  The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

19.          The complainant, in his affidavit, by way of evidence, supported the averments contained in the complaint. Not only this, a criminal case of forgery was registered against Ms. Harpreet Kaur, by the Police. During the course of that criminal case, the standard signatures of the complainant, were obtained by the Investigating Officer. The questioned signatures of the complainant, on the cheques, which are in dispute, in the instant case, were compared with his standard signatures and Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, submitted his report, copy whereof is CW2/J. Not only this, Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, appeared as CW2, and was examined by the District Forum. In his statement dated 3.10.2011, before the District Forum, he stated that he compared the disputed signatures of the complainant, on the cheques, with his standard signatures. He further stated that the disputed signatures, on the cheques, (CW-2/A to CW-2D), did not tally with the standard signatures of the complainant.  The report of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, who appeared before the District Forum, is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant, which was submitted by him, by way of evidence. The report CW2/J of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, is a detailed one, which is based on cogent & convincing data,  material and reasoning. There was no reason, on the part of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, to favour any party, he, being a Govt. Servant and disinterested in the parties. The District Forum, was, thus, right in relying upon the evidence, and report of Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, coupled with the evidence of the complainant, in coming to the conclusion, that signatures on the cheques, in question, were not of the complainant, but, were forged by Ms. Harpreet Kaur. The District Forum was also right in coming to the conclusion, that the bank Officials, did not properly compare the questioned signatures, on the cheques, in dispute, with the specimen signatures of the complainant, and, thus, committed negligence, in encashing the same. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

20.          The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the disputed signatures, on the cheques, in question, were not compared by Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, with the specimen signatures of the complainant, in possession of the Bank, and, as such, his report could not be relied upon. Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents during the course of his cross-examination, no doubt, stated that he did not compare the disputed signatures of the complainant, on the cheques, in question, with his specimen signatures. Infact, the original specimen signatures of the complainant, which were in possession of the Opposite Party, were not supplied to him, or Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents. When after comparison of the disputed signatures, on the cheques, in question, with the standard signatures of the complainant, which were in existence in the criminal file, brought by the Ahlmad of the District Courts, Chandigarh, before the District Forum, Mr. Trilochan Joshi, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, came to the conclusion, that the same were not written by one and the same person, then, the onus lay upon the Opposite Party, to move an application, for comparison of the said signatures, with the specimen signatures of the complainant, by another independent expert. No such application was moved by the Opposite Party, before the District Forum, for undertaking the exercise, in that regard. Once the initial onus was discharged by complainant, by proving that the disputed signatures on the cheques, in question, did not relate to him, then it was for the Opposite Party, to rebut the same. It has been averred by the complainant, in the complaint, duly supported by his affidavit, that the Opposite Party, supplied the photocopy of the Account Signature Display sheet  (Annexure C-4, at page 113 of the District Forum file), as a proof of specimen signatures, but the specimen signatures of the complainant, on Annexure C-4, did not appear. In the absence of specimen signatures of the complainant, on Annexure C-4, comparison could not be made. Otherwise also, comparison could not be made with the photo impression of the signatures of the complainant, with his questioned signatures. The mere fact, that the questioned signatures of the complainant, were not compared with his specimen signatures, as the same, in original, were not supplied by the Opposite Party, to him, did not, in any way, cast doubt, on the report Annexure CW2/J. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

21.          No evidence was produced, on the record, to show that there was a variation, between the disputed signatures of the complainant, obtained by the Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation of the criminal case, lodged against Ms. Harpreet Kaur, and, his specimen signatures. No doubt, there can be some variation in the signatures of a person, if he appends the same, after the lapse of a considerable period of time, from the date, when he appended his specimen signatures, yet, the Examiner of Questioned Documents, while comparing the disputed signatures, with the specimen signatures or standard signatures of a person, takes into consideration various factors. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

22.          The District Forum, awarded compensation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant. In our considered opinion, compensation, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, for a loss of Rs.28,000/-,  on account of encashment of the cheques, bearing forged signatures, by the bank, could certainly be said to be on the higher side. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant.  The compensation is required to be fair, just and not unreasonable and arbitrary. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the Consumers, at the cost of the service provider, by awarding unfair, unreasonable and highly excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in Surendra Kumar Tyagi`s case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Forum, thus, granted excessive amount of compensation, to the complainant. In this view of the matter, if compensation, in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, if granted to the complainant, that would not only be fair and reasonable, but also commensurate with the injury suffered by him. It is held that the complainant is only entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum. 

23.          The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was also wrong, in granting interest @18% p.a., in default of compliance of the order, within the stipulated period. It could certainly be said to be on the higher side. In our considered opinion, if interest @12%, is granted, that would be just, fair and reasonable. The order of the District Forum, granting interest @18% p.a., is modified, and instead, interest @12% p.a., is granted.

24.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

25.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is modified, in the following manner:-

(i)                  The Opposite Party shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, instead of Rs.30,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.

(ii)         Interest @18% P.A., in default of compliance of its order, within the stipulated period, awarded by the District Forum, is reduced to 12% P.A.

(iii)        The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, by its majority order, shall remain intact.

26.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

27.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

October 1, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg