PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. A SULAIKA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in OP 73/2000 on the file of District Forum, Pudukottai is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is as follows: On 7.4.2000 she deposited a demand draft dated 30.3.2000 for Rs. 55,000 drawn on Bank of Madurai Ltd., Pudukottai with the opposite party for encashment. The opposite party did not encash. After a month, the opposite party stated that the DD had been lost in transit or misplaced. He asked the complainant to get duplicate DD. This was deficiency in service. The complainant caused a notice to be issued to the opposite party on 4.8.2000. The opposite party did not pay the amount. In these circumstances, this complaint came to be filed.

(3.) THE opposite party filed a version as follows: The DD presented by the complainant was sent to Bank of Madurai Ltd., Pudukottai for collection. This was returned by the other Bank on 7.4.2000 with remark "advice not received". On 8.4.2000, the said instrument was despatched to the complainant through courier service. There was no delay or laches on the part of the opposite party. After a lapse of three or four months, the complainant approached the opposite party Bank and said that the DD was not received and wanted a letter from the opposite party that the instrument was lost in transit so as to enable her to get a duplicate draft. In good faith, the opposite party gave a letter on 16.5.2000. Instead of getting a duplicate DD, the complainant had filed the complaint against the opposite party. The opposite party was not responsible for loss of draft in transit. On enquiry, it was found that no payment was made on the strength of the instrument and the same was still outstanding. The complainant had not suffered any loss. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. On the side of the complainant, Ex. A1 to Ex. A3 were marked while on the side of the opposite party, Ex. B1 to Ex. B3 were marked. The District Forum found that there was no document filed by the opposite party to show that the tapal mentioned in Ex. B1 was delivered to the complainant. In such circumstances, it was to be construed that the DD had been misplaced or lost in the office of the opposite party. This amounted to deficiency in service. The opposite party had not pursued the matter further with the foreign bank and had not obtained any instruction or information as to whether the DD was issued by that bank. So holding, by order dated 19.12.2002, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay the draft amount of Rs. 55,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.9.2000 till the date of the payment, together with a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500 towards costs. It is as against that, the present appeal has been filed.