S C SEGARAM Vs. ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Ac

(2.) The Complainant purchased M/s Thomas Cook Travellers Cheques to the value of 24,550 US $ from the first Opposite Party ANZ Grindlays Bank. The complainant spent 50 travellers cheque worth about 1550 US $ and lost the balance traveller cheques to the value of 23,000 US $ on 4.11.91 when he was travelling in an auto-rickshaw. On 5.11.91 the first Opposite Party ANZ Grindlays Bank was duly informed and the complaint was given to the police. He approached M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. , Madras Office for refund but in vain. He therefore filed O. P.191/93 on the file of this Commission against M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. , Madras for refund of the amount alleging deficiency in service. M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. , Madras contended that these travellers cheques were not issued by it but by M/s. Thomas Cook (INC) New York and it was not in any way responsible for refund of the amount. This contention was accepted by this Commission and O. P.191/93 was dismissed by its order dated 31.12.93. The complainant has now filed a fresh complaint against (1) ANZ Grindlays Bank, Madras (2) M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. , Madras (3) M/s. Thomas Cook Traveller Cheque Ltd. , Great Britain (4) M/s. Thomas Cook (INC) New York and (5) M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. , Bombay. The second opposite party which was the sole opposite party in the earlier O. P.191/93 was given up and the Opposite Parties were re-numbered. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of all the present 4 opposite parties in not refunding the amount due in respect of the lost travellers cheques and claimed the value in Indian rupee with interest, loss of income, mental suffering etc. , totalling Rs.19,99,400/-.

(3.) The first Opposite Party ANZ Grindlays Bank contended that it has sold the travellers cheques to the complainant to the value of 24,550 US $ and issued remittance advice to the ANZ Bank, New York to the credit of M/s Thomas Cook (INC) New York. There was no deficiency on its part. There is no responsibility on the part of the first Opposite Party to refund the amount of the lost travellers cheques. The claim against the first opposite party must, therefore, fail.