CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. PARWEEN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the learned District Forum, Sitamarhi in the complaint case No.2 of 90 before them.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent purchased from the appellant four traveller cheques bearing Nos.114325 to 114328 for Rs.2,500/- each from the Sitamarhi Branch of the Central Bank of India on 6.7.90. These traveller cheques were lost by her as her Briefcase which contained these traveller cheques was stolen on 11.7.90 from the Frontier Mail in which she was travelling. The complainant thereafter sent telegram from Delhi on 12.7.90 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sitamarhi intimating the theft of the traveller cheques and on 16.7.90 she personally came over and claimed for the refund of the amount of Rs.10,000/- for which he had purchased the traveller cheques which were stolen. No payment was made to her and she, therefore, made a complaint before the District Forum on 19th December, 90. The Central Bank of India, however, took the plea before the District Forum that no FIR was lodged by the respondent before the Delhi Police about the theft of the traveller cheques. It was also said before the District Forum that the matter had been referred to the headquarters of the Bank and the amount of Rs.10,000/- covered by the four traveller cheques could be refunded to the respondent only after instruction from the Head Office. The amount was, however, not paid to the respondent and a period of more than a year had elapsed from the date of the purchase of the traveller cheques to the date of the order of the District Forum dated 26th July, 1991 referred to above. The appellant was directed to pay back the amount of Rs.10,000/- covered by four traveller cheques along with interest of 12% and further a compensation of Rs.2,000/- was also to he paid to the complainant. Before receiving the payment the District Forum directed the respondent to execute an Indemnity Bond alongwith two securities clearly stating that if any malafide was detected in her claim she would return the entire amount to the Bank alongwith interest of 12% per year.

(3.) We have perused the records of the learned District Forum and heard the learned advocates for the appellant as also the respondent who appeared in person.