MICHEAL AUGUSTHY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant , a practising Advocate at Patiala House, New Delhi has claimed Rs. 65,40,000/- from the respondents-opposite parties on account of loss of his travellers cheques in US dollars. His claim has been denied by the opposite parties.

(2.) Complainant alleged that when he was in Hongkong a company by the name Madina Exchange Company, Hongkong paid him US $ 49,500 on the instructions of his client. From this money he said that he had purchased travellers cheques from the American Express Bank in Hongkong itself. Complainant then came down to Bangkok on 14.4.1998 where he said that he lost the travellers cheques in a taxi and there he lodged a First Information Report. He lodged a claim for the loss of these travellers cheques with the American Express Bank at Bangkok. Thereafter, the matter was taken up at in India by the complainant.

(3.) Cmplainant said that he had gone to Hongkong for his professional work. By letter dated 10.9.1998 opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainants stating "Based on our extensive investigations, and information obtained by American Express, pertaining to the circumstances of this rule, we are not in a position to approve your claim." Complainant strongly protested to this letter of the opposite parties. He said that he was not associated with the investigation and further that rules of natural justice have been violated. He wanted the matter to be reviewed. Opposite parties agreed.