DEVA PRIYA DEV Vs. CITI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS is an Appeal directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, CDF-I, in CDF-1/case No. 234/2005 on 7. 3. 2007 directing the Respondent No. 1 OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000 together with cost of Rs. 1,000. However, though the award went in favour of the Complainant, not being satisfied with it he preferred the present Appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that the Appellant received a cheque for Rs. 47,795 on 2. 7. 1999 issued by the Respondent No. 3 towards compensation in respect of the land acquired by them for Rajarhat Project, which was drawn on State Bank of India, Barasat Branch. The said cheque was deposited to the account number G. O. 265266002 of the Appellant with the CITI Bank, Kolkata, for credit to his account. Allegedly the cheque in question did not contain the signature of the Appellant and, therefore, the cheque was sent by the Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant's address at London. However, the cheque was lost in transit and consequently the proceeds of the cheque could not be credited to his account. Being aggrieved by the alleged loss of the cheque in transit by the Respondent No. 1, he filed a complaint before the Forum below praying for compensation and cost and also for payment of the cheque amount. The learned Forum after hearing all the sides passed an order directing the Respondent No. 3, i. e. the cheque issuing authority, to issue a fresh cheque in favour of the Appellant/complainant after obtaining necessary Certificate from the drawee bank. It also passed an order for payment of compensation of Rs. 4,000 together with cost of Rs. 1,000 by the Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant.

(3.) THE Appellant in his Memo of Appeal contended that for the purpose of his profession he is permanently settled at U. K. He has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his sister, Smt. Dipanjana Choudhury, for institution of the instant complaint against the Respondents for redressal of his grievances. He further contended that in his prayer before the Forum below he had prayed for payment of the cheque amount and also for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000 together with Litigation Cost of Rs. 20,000. But the learned Forum had passed an order allowing a small amount of compensation and cost without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the suffering and mental agony he has faced. He, therefore, prays for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000 as also Litigation Cost of Rs. 20,000 in addition to the cheque amount. He further contended that though he had made several correspondences with the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no action had been taken to recover the cheque amount and there was an attempt for shifting of responsibility by both the Respondents. He had prayed before the learned Forum for directing the OP Nos. 1 and 2 for furnishing the details of dispatch of the cheque and the Forum passed an order accordingly. But the OP Nos. 1 and 2 had nevertheless failed to furnish those details, as a result of which it became difficult to pin-point as to who is actually responsible for deficiency in service on account of loss of the cheque. He also contended that the cheque should have been sent by registered post, but the OP Nos. 1 and 2 failed to satisfy the Court as to how they had dispatched the cheque to the address of the Appellant. Having failed to elicit the response regarding supply of details relating to the dispatch of the cheque he sent a Lawyer's Notice on 31. 8. 2004 to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. But even then there was no response from the Respondents. He contended further that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the deficiency of service in terms of Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act was writ large on the face of the complaint and the learned Forum had passed an order accordingly though it should have directed the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the cheque amount also. However, the other reliefs as prayed for by him are very small amount considering the harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Hence, he has come up with the prayer for considering his original prayer for relief as contained in the complaint.