(1.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order of the learned District Forum, Siliguri, directing the O. P.-respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation to the complainant-appellant for deficiency in service in the matter of issuing a bank draft purchased by the appellant.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant, Miss Rina Saha having her residence at Mukunda Das Road, New Milan Pally, Siliguri-5, applied to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch for a bank draft for Rs.4,500 to be issued in favour of IGNOU, Kolkata, on 14.3.2002 for sending the same to the Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre, Bikash Bhawan, North Block, 4th Floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091, for registration in M. C. A. Course in IV Semester. The Bank issued the draft in favour of the Regional Director. Kolkata Regional Centre, but the drawee branch was named as Karaikudi in place of Kolkata. The application along with the draft was returned by the IGNOU Regional Centre under their letter dated 1.5.2002 with the comment, "your application for registration in M. C. A.- IV Programme (2002) is rejected due to the reason that the draft should be payable at Kolkata and not at Karaikudi. " However, on receiving the said draft from the IGNOU Regional Centre, the appellant contacted the respondent for correction of the draft accordingly, but the IGNOU refused to consider the prayer of the appellant for her admission in the said course due to such delay.
(3.) Being aggrieved due to the failure of the respondent to issue the draft with the name of the intended drawee branch as per her application, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, Darjeeling, for payment of compensation on various grounds for an amount of Rs.5,16,000. The O. P. /respondent submitted before the learned Forum that though they had wrongly mentioned the name of the branch as Karaikudi instead of Kolkata, the complainant should have checked the correctness of the draft at the time of taking delivery and, therefore, the appellant was equally responsible for the unfortunate incident which followed. The respondent had relied on the decision and submitted that it was an accidental mistake and there was no laches or deficiency on the part of the Bank and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service in terms of Sec.2 (g) of C. P. Act. After hearing both the sides, the learned Forum observed that despite the decision as aforesaid, the failure of the respondent/o. P. had resulted in loss of complete one session of the complainant-appellant, as a result of which she had to suffer a substantial amount of monetary loss in the form of tuition fees and also consequential loss of earning after passing the examination. Thelearned Forum, therefore, passed the above order.