1. THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10.10.2000 in Complaint Case No. 299 of 1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II), whereby the District Forum-II had dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-II, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
2. BRIEFLY, the appellant/complainant, Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur resident of Kothi No. 562, Phase-I (Sector 55), SAS Nagar, Mohali, deposited Rs. 15,000/- with respondent/opposite party, J.C.T. Limited, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001 (opposite party No. 1), through opposite party No. 2, Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Ltd., S.C.O. No. 89-91, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh and a fixed deposit receipt bearing No. 101473 with maturity dated 8.8.1997 was received from J.C.T. Ltd., the respondent/opposite party No. 1. As per averments made in the complaint since the maturity amount of Rs. 17,370/- was not received, a legal notice dated 20.5.1998 for the non-receipt of the money was sent to respondent/opposite party No.1. The respondent/opposite party No. 1, in reply sent a communication No. JCT/FD/1170 dated 26.5.1998 (brought on record as Annexure C-1), whereby the complainant was informed vide Clause 7 of the abovesaid letter that DD No. 180 811 dated 25.5.1998 for Rs. 17,370/- sent to you towards refund has been received back from courier authorities undelivered with the remark ''no such persons at given address''. The complainant has stated that she has been staying in the same house all this while and so no point of time she was not residing at the address given. She has further averred that due to this negligent service of respondents, she was deprived of the interest on the maturity amount for 9 months (from 8.8.1997 to 26.5.1998), She has prayed to be granted Rs. 2,344/- towards interest on the amount (of Rs. 17,370/- @ 18%) in addition to Rs. 1,000/- for harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs of litigation.
In reply to the summons issued by District Forum-II, a reply dated 7th August, 2000 by respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the maturity amount sent by a demand draft to the complainant through courier service since returned undelivered, kept on lying with them. However, on hearing from the complainant, the same draft has been sent after a revalidation on 25.5.1998.
The District Forum-II on 10.10.2000 dismissed the complaint and the order reads as under :
"In the reply filed by the opposite party, it is stated that amount has been sent to the complainant. In these circumstances, the complaint is dismissed."
3. AGGRIEVED against the above order, this appeal was filed by Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur wherein the main relief prayed for is as under :
(a) to grant Rs. 2,344/- as interest @ 18% for delay and deficiency in service on payment of Rs. 17,370/-; (b) to grant compensation Rs. 1,000/- for unnecessary harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant; (c) to grant legal expenses Rs. 1,000/-; (d) to grant any other relief deems fit by this Hon''ble Forum.
The appellant has averred that the District Forum-II erroneously dismissed the complaint on the mere filing of the reply by the respondent No. 1.
4. THE District Forum-II has overlooked the facts of the complaint inasmuch as due to the abovesaid deficient service of the respondents/opposite parties. She has been put to loss of interest for 9 months.
The respondent/opposite party has failed to furnish any proof of the demand draft having been sent by the courier. The abovesaid order of the District Forum-II has failed to take notice of the deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party.
We have perused the record of the case and heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and representative of respondent No. 1. A thorough appraisal of the facts of the case brings us to the conclusion that the District Forum-II in its order dated 10.10.2000 disposed of the complaint with the remark that since the amount has been received the case stands dismissed. The learned Forum did not go into the crucial point, namely the date on which the amount matured and the date on which it was actually received by the complainant. The mere submission by the respondent that the demand draft of the amount sent by the courier was returned and hence it kept lying in their office, is not a reason sufficient enough in the eye of law to exonerate them from their liability towards this depositor/consumer. The District Forum-II, erred in law by accepting the version of the respondent specially, so when it was totally uncorrobarated by any document like proof by the courier agency etc. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum-II has not noticed and appreciated the facts of case in the proper perspective. We hold, the respondents, clearly deficient in the service rendered to this complainant and liable to pay interest for the 9 months period but @ 9%. The complainant since put to some inconvenience and harassment as a consequence of deficient services of the respondent as is also held entitled to compensation of Rs. 250/- towards the same, and Rs. 250/- towards the costs of litigation. Thus, the impugned order of the District Forum-II is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.
