Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant in Consumer complainant No.192/2006 (Shri Sadashiv Pundalik Rikame V/s. The Nashik Dist.Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nashik,) against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (‘the Forum’ in short), whereby, allowing the complaint partly the forum directed Opponent to pay to the Complainant compensation of `15,000/- towards mental torture and `1,500/- towards expenses. However, not satisfied with the compensation awarded the Complainant has filed this appeal.
(2) It is submitted at Bar that Respondent/Opponent Bank had already complied the order passed by the Forum by paying an amount of `15,000/- and `1,500/-, supra.
(3) There is delay of two months and 18 days in filing the appeal and therefore, a condonation of delay application bearing No.281/2011 is filed. Today, at the time of hearing of this application Applicant/Appellant preferred to remain absent contrary to the obligation of Rule 9(6) of the Maharashtra Rules 2000 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the circumstances, we heard Ld.Advocate Mr.Gite for the Non-Applicant/Respondent on condonation of delay. Perused the record.
(4) In the instant case referring to the paragraph nos.3 and 4 of delay condonation application he pleaded aground of his old age and poor economic condition. These grounds, which are vague, without any corroboration cannot be held as sufficient ground to condone the delay. Apart from that looking to the merit of the matter it can be seen that it is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank which failed to clear the cheque given to it by the Complainant for clearance. The cheque was lost by Courier Company for which Bank cannot be held directly responsible. The only allegation made was that the Bank did not inform the loss of cheque to the Complainant immediately but after quite sometime. However, further circumstances show that the Complainant already got reimbursed the amount by the Opponent who issued the cheque and therefore, it is a case that the Complainant already received the amount for which the cheque was issued. Complainant did not allege that because of Bank’s alleged act of deficiency, he suffered any loss. In the circumstances, the Forum cannot be held has committed any wrong in passing the award of compensation to the extent of `15,000/- for the alleged mental torture or inconvenience suffered by the Complainant. There is no merit in the appeal for enhancement of compensation.
(5) For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
(ii) In the result, Appeal No.450/2011 is not entertained.
(iii) In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 9th July, 2012.
