- (1.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 9th February, 2004 rendered by the learned Jamnagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint Application No. 128/2002 directing the original opponent No. 1 Bank (appellant herein) to pay to the complainant Rs. 15,000/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment and cost quantified at Rs. 1,000/ -. The learned Forum dismissed the complaint against the courier service (original opponent No. 2).
(2.) WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order.
(3.) IT would appear that the complainant had with him cheque for Rs. 15,000/ - of Plan -V -1 Unit of his investment in Suman Motels Limited and the due date was 6.8.2001. The cheque was drawn on The United Western Bank Limited at Mumbai and it was a crossed A/c Payee cheque. The complainant deposited the cheque with the opponent No. 1 Bank on 6.8.2002 for collection thereof from the concerned Bank at Mumbai. It was the complainant s case that the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and the first opponent Bank informed him that when the cheque would be received back from the drawee Bank it would be returned to the complainant. On inquiry after ten days the complainant came to be informed that the cheque was sent through the opponent No. 2 Origin Courier Service and he would receive it within 2 -3 days. In spite of repeated visits to the opponent No. 1 Bank as the cheuqe was not handed over to the complainant and satisfactory reply was also not given to him and as ultimately letter dated 30th September, 2002 was written to the complainant sending therewith copy of letter dated 28.9.2002 which was addressed to the opponent No. 2 Courier Services, complainant made grievance that there was deprivation of taking appropriate action against the drawer of the cheque M/s. Suman Motels Pvt. Ltd. and that he sustained loss of Rs. 15,000/ -. Complainant, therefore, prayed for relief to the value of the cheque with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation and cost respectively in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - and Rs. 2,500/ - from the opponents. The opponent No. 1 resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that it offered the returned cheque to the complainant in person but the complainant did not go to collect the cheque and the returned cheque was sent through opponent No. 2 courier service and that it had given satisfactory reply and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No. 1 Bank. Opponent No. 2 Original Courier Service resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that opponent No. 1 Bank did not hand over the cheque or the cover containing such cheque to the said courier service and there was no entry with regard to such cheque or cover in its records. After appreciating the material placed on the record learned Forum came to the conclusion that the story set up by the opponent No. 1 with regard to it having entrusted the cheque to the opponent No. 2 courier service could not be accepted and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No. 2 courier service in not properly accounting for despatch of returned cheque of Rs. 15,000/ - to the complainant. Learned Forum came to the conclusion that as the complainant did not have the original dishonoured cheque with him he was deprived of taking action against the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, he was entitled to the amount of the cheque with appropriate interest and cost and passed the impugned order.;