Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order :  30.04.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only ) including principal amount with interest, compensation and litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The case of the complainant from Performa for filing complaint appears to be as follows.

The complainant made a D.D. of Rs. 10,000/- vide no. 028231 dated 08.08.2003 but the same was not delivered. The complainant again requested for the same and it was issued by opposite party no. 2 ( S.B.I. Hanuman Nagar ) vide D.D. no. 0311028231 but the same was lost in transit. Neither opposite party no. 1 In this regard it is stated that nor opposite party no. 2 have redressed the grievance of the complainant by returning the amount in question.

The complainant has prayed relief for directing the opposite parties to pay principal amount with interest and litigation costs.

Except Performa no any detailed facts have been filed.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a humble version ( appears to be written statement ) has been filed stating therein that as the D.D. in question was of 2003and complaint has been filed in 2010 hence this case is hopelessly bared by limitation as the same has to be filed within the period of two years.

It is further stated that complainant is a stranger and is not a consumer under the Consumer protection Act.

In Para – 10 of the written statement of opposite party no. 1 has stated that the complainant has made a D.D. bearing no. 028231 dated 08.08.2003 for Rs. 10,000/- from S.B.I. Hanuman Nagar, Patna ( opposite party no. 2 ) and send it through speed post to R.L. Institute of Nautical Science, Madurai but the same was not delivered. Thereafter the complainant has got a duplicate D.D. of the same and deposited in Account no. FSCLFN of I.C.I.C.I Bank ( as will appear from annexure – 4 of Performa ) which was not credited in the Account of aforesaid Institute and hence the money is to be returned by opposite party no. 2 and not by opposite party no. 1.

In this written statement it had been prayed on behalf if opposite party no. 1 that the case be dismissed.

On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a written statement have been filed from which the real fact of the case comes in picture. In the written statement of opposite party no. 2 it is stated that opposite party no. 2 after sympathetic view has already issued duplicate of D.D. of Rs. 10,000/- having No. 031028731 dated 08.08.2003 to the complainant but the same was again lost in transit.

It has been further asserted that when the complainant gave representation in this regard Bank ( opposite party no. 2 ) took sympathetic view and said to the complainant to take another duplicate D.D. if needed or take his money back by way of bankers Cheque but the complainant has not approached the bank to collect the same.

In Para – 5 of written statement of opposite party no. 2 has written the following facts “ that under the circumstances bank is submitting the bankers cheque of Rs. 10,000/- in the court itself to end this dispute and at the same time request to the complainant not to make a issue which was already resolved by the opposite party no. 2 earlier and dispose of the matter in the end of justice.”

It goes without saying that the complainant has not replied the facts asserted by opposite party no. 2 in written statement and as such these facts had not been controverted by complainant.

The facts asserted by the parties have been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.

It is the case of the complainant that he had made a D.D. of Rs. 10,000/- from opposite party no. 2 which had been lost by I.C.I.C.I bank in transit and the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by opposite party no. 1 or opposite party no. 2.

Opposite party no. 2 has categorically stated in his written statement that the bank was ready for issuing another duplicate D.D. if needed by the complainant or return the amount of the complainant by bankers cheque but the complainant did not turned up.

As stated above these facts has not been controverted hence this fact if taken on face value gives another picture.

It goes without saying that D.D. belongs to 2003 and the case has been filed in 2010 after a long delay and this period has not been condoned.

It further appears that the complainant did not turned up to opposite party no. 2 for receiving another duplicate D.D. or D.D. amount by way of bankers cheque. It is also crystal clear that the D.D. has not been lost by opposite party no. 2 in transit rather it got lost by opposite party no. 1 in transit.

From judicial record it further appears that the complainant’s father has already received bankers cheque no. 717564 for Rs. 10,000/- on authorization letter from complainant himself with protest.

It also appears from record that complainant’s father has received cheque no. 006259 of Rs. 15,000/- submitted by opposite party no. 1 ( I.C.I.C.I. ). This fact is also crystal clear from petition dated 22.01.2013 filed on behalf of the complainant.

Thus it is crystal clear from the record that for the lost of Rs. 10,000/- the complainant has received Rs. 25,000/- from opposite parties.

In our opinion the complainant has received sufficient amount from opposite parties and hence he did not deserve anything else.

In view of the aforesaid facts this case stands disposed off.

                             Member                                                                              President