Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. This appeal is filed by original opposite party (for short O.P.) feeling aggrieved by an order dated 21/03/2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha in consumer complaint No.120/2011, by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under.
The appellant is a bank and respondent who is the original complainant had presented a cheque issued by M.P.S.C.Mumbai, for Rs.44,070/- to the appellant/bank on 29/09/2010 for its encashment. However when the appellant sent the said cheque to the bank on which the said cheque was drawn, it was lost in transit and accordingly the appellant informed the respondent by letter dated 27/01/2011. The appellant also requested M.P.S.C.,Mumbai to issue the duplicate cheque of that amount, as aforesaid cheque issued by MPSC, Mumbai was lost in transit. The said MPSC, Mumbai did not give the duplicate cheque. Therefore the respondent issued notice dated 29/09/2018 to the appellant to pay the amount of that cheque. The appellant did not give reply to that notice. Hence the respondent filed consumer complaint before District Forum, Wardha claiming from the appellant Rs.44,070/- with interest @ 15% P.A. from 29/09/2010 and further claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost.
3. The appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the said complaint by filing reply. The defence raised by the appellant was that as the cheque presented by the respondent was lost in transit, it had written letter dated 02/09/2011 to the respondent giving that intimation. Moreover on 15/03/2011 the appellant had requested the respondent to obtain duplicate cheque from the MPSC, Mumbai. But he did not obtain duplicate cheque from that authority. The appellant wrote a letter to MPSC, Mumbai to issue duplicate cheque, but it is not issued. Therefore it was requested by the appellant that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering the evidence brought on record partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay respondent Rs.44,070/- with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date 29/09/2010 and also to pay him compensation of Rs.3000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order and in case of default to pay interest @ 12% P.A. instead of 8% P.A. with effect from 29/09/2010. Hence this appeal is filed by the original O.P.
5. The learned advocate of the appellant though filed written notes of arguments on 28/11/2016, he failed to appear for final hearing on last two dates i.e. on 15/06/2018 and 05/07/2018 and today also. Moreover, though the respondent had appeared through their advocate and filed power of his advocate on 03/12/2015, no one appeared for the respondent at the time of final hearing. The respondent has also not filed written notes of arguments. Therefore we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
6. We have perused the entire record and proceedings of the appeal.
7. The appellants’ advocate in his written notes of arguments reiterated the aforesaid case of the appellant as set out in the reply and submitted that the Forum below did not consider properly the evidence brought on record and erred in partly allowing the complaint as above. In short he submitted that the Forum below did not consider the letter correspondence made by the appellant and efforts taken by the appellant for obtaining duplicate cheque and that the guide lines of the Reserve Bank of India are also not considered by the Forum which provide that bank is only liable to pay related expenses incurred for obtaining duplicate cheque. Hence he requested that the impugned order may be set aside.
8. It is pertinent to note that the appellant simply filed copies of the complaint, reply filed to the complaint and the impugned order along with the appeal memo. No document is filed before this Commission to show the steps taken by the appellant for obtaining the duplicate cheque. No copies of the documents are filed in appeal which were filed before the Forum.
9. The appellant in para No.2 of its reply filed before the Forum stated that it had written a letter to MPSC, Mumbai to issue duplicate cheque as the earlier cheque issued to respondent has been lost in transit. Despite issuing the said letter, duplicate cheque was not issued by the said authority. In our view, when despite writing a letter to the cheque issuing authority, the duplicate cheque is not issued by the said authority then definitely respondent suffered the loss of amount of the said cheque. No guide lines of the Reserve Bank of India are produced before this Commission in support of the submission made in written notes of arguments that the appellant is responsible only to pay expense incurred for obtaining the duplicate cheque. Hence the said submission made for the first time in appeal can not be considered.
10. The respondent was required to approach the appellant from time to time for encashment of the cheque and he was lastly required to issue notice through his advocate to the appellant. Considering the said harassment on the part of the appellant, and considering that the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.44,070/- due to deficient service provided by the appellant to the respondent, the direction given by the Forum below to the appellant to pay Rs.44,070/- with interest, compensation and cost as above is just and proper and needs no interference in appeal. Accordingly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
// ORDER//
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to cost in this appeal.
- Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
