KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.215/06 JUDGMENT DATED.10.7.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER Thankamma Joy, W/o K.M.Joy, -- APPELLANT Kuthur house, Kadavanthra, Kochi-20. (By Adv.P.K.Das) Vs. 1. The Chief Manager, South Indian bank, M.G.Road, Kochin-16. 2. The South Indian Bank, -- RESPONDENTS Extension Counter, (St.Joseph’s School) Kadavanthra, Kochi-20. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No.615/04 dated 20th May 2005. The appellant is the complainant in the above said OP. The brief of the case is that the complainant presented a cheque for Rs.30,000/- on 19.7.2004 before the second opposite party bank for clearance. The complainant did not receive the amount as per cheque and she knew that the cheque was not encashed. Therefore, she sent a letter to the first opposite party. So far as she has not been paid the amount under the cheque and so as claimed the cheque amount with interest and compensation from the opposite parties. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a written version. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The cheque presented by the complaint was sent for collection by courier and it is assumed that it was lost in transit or after words. The loss was due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties. The complainant was advised to obtain a duplicate of the cheque so that it could be sent for collection but she has not done so. The complainant cannot ask for compensation from the opposite parties and there is no deficiency of service on their part. 3. The complainant has marked Exts A1 to A3 and first opposite party filed a proof affidavit on behalf of both and marked Ext.B1. The complainant whom wanted the case herself submitted that the opposite party need not be cross examined. 4. The Forum heard both sides and peruseD the evidence adduced by both parties and found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they have to compensate the complainant. The Forum also found that the complainant has claimed the cheque amount with interest. The opposite parties cannot be ask to pay that amount and they can be asked to compensate so far. It release to deficiency in service. The result of the complaint is that the Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the forum below. Heard both sides and peruse the evidence adduced by both parties in the forum below. It seen that the cheque was sent by courier and it appears that the respondent/opposite parties are not sure as to what has happened to the cheque. In the version, the respondent/opposite party stated “the cheque has assumed in transit or after words”. There is no evidence seen in the case records that the opposite party have proceeded against the courier service for the alleged loss of the cheque. The counsel appeared for the appellant and submitted that the cheque was issued by M/s. Baron International, Mumbai a part of the purchase of TV set. The complainant purchased a TV set on the basis of an agreement and that after the use of six years M/s. Baron International will be taken back after the use of TV and they will pay the amount of 30% of the cost of the TV. The counsel also submitted that for getting a duplicate cheque M/s.Baron International, Mumbai was not exist then there is no other alternative to get another cheque. It cannot be understand that in the absence of the M/s.Baron International, Mumbai how the complainant is getting collection of the cheque from them that means no purpose will be served by this cheque do to the absence the person who issued. This is nothing but a sanitary paper. This shows that cheque was not exist. This is nothing but the loss of cheque is no way help him to realize the amount of Rs.30,000/-. But, no doubt that the loss of cheque is a deficiency of service from the part of the respondents/opposite parties. In this circumstance, they are liable to pay the compensation and costs for the deficiency in service committed by them. This Commission is seeing that the order passed by the forum is legally sustainable and according with law and evidence. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the forum below. The compensation awarded by the forum below is very reasonable. There is no scope for further enhancement of the amount. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER S/L JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
