LAWS(TNCDRC)-2011-11-28

CHANDRA BHUSHANA, GUPTA KORADA Vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS

Decided On November 29, 2011
Chandra Bhushana, Gupta Korada Appellant
V/S
American Express Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants, claiming to be the consumers, have filed this case for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.20,53,325/-, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties on the following grounds.

(2.) THE complainants 1 & 2 are the husband and wife and their son is the third complainant. In order to attend the eldest son?s marriage of the first complainant, at Poland, as well as to visit places of tourist, planned to club meetings with business contacts in U.K., they have planned a travel, for that, they have purchased the Traveller Cheques of the first opposite party, from the second opposite party, who is the authorized agent as detailed in Para 3 of the complaint, totaling a sum of Rs.9,31,525/-.

(3.) THE complainants, were informed on their reaching at London by their eldest son that there were incidents of housing breaking in that area and therefore they have decided to encash the Traveller Cheques and deposit the same in the Bank account of their son Madhu. They have approached Abbey National Bank, who informed/advised to approach nearest Post Office or AMEX Counters, since they did not encash TCs. The complainants had kept all the TCs except the value for Rs.31,200/-, inside the red plastic folder provided by the second opposite party. Madhu, after deposit of the cash in his account, proceeded to enquire the nearest AMEX Counter or Post Office. At that time, when the first complainant opened the bagpack, he could not find the red folder containing the TCs. Their effort to trace out it through ANB video clipping as well as filing Police complaint, ended in vain. They have also immediately informed the AMEX furnishing the required particulars. A worldwide warning about the loss of TCs had been given and the TCs are no more valid. When they sought for refund, the complainants were informed the possibility of TCs being encashed and therefore, they refused to accept the claim of the complainants, for refund, as per the letter dated 06.08.2003.