Mistake in communication by the appellant leading to unnecessary litigation warrants compensation to the complainant.

Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order in Complaint No. 95/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’ for short) directing the appellant to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 7,820/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, besides the cost of the complaint.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal stated in brief are, that the complainants/respondents had purchased 200 units of Dhan Vikas (1) Open Ended Scheme of Jeevan Bima Sahayog Asset Management Company Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent thereafter by their option letter expressed their desire for redemption of above units allotted to them under Folio No. 70306500 and directed the appellant No. 1 to credit the amount of repurchase in their account No. 8973 at Syndicate Bank, Station Road, Raipur. It also appears from the record of the complainant that a cheque for Rs. 1,564/- drawn in favour of 1st applicant, complainant/respondent No. 1 herein was sent towards redemption/repurchase price. The copy of said cheque for Rs. 1,564/- is marked as Exhibit 3 in the complaint case. The amount of the said cheque has been duly credited to the account of complainant/respondent No. 1, as would appear from the endorsement on the said cheque.

3. The complainant, however, claimed that they were entitled to maturity amount of Rs. 7,820/- towards the said 200 units. It appears that the said claim is based on intimation by appellant No. 2 by their letter dated 9.12.1998, whereby the complainant/respondent No. 1 was informed that cheque No. 18065 dated 31.7.1998 for Rs. 7,820/-, had been sent to them, towards repurchase price of the said units.

4. After hearing Counsel and perusal of the record, it appears that the letter as above by the appellant No. 2 became the cause for complainant’s grievance and the basis on which the complaint was filed claiming the said amount of Rs. 7,820/-.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant cheque No. 18065 dated 31.7.1998 marked as Exhibit 3 was sent to the complainant/respondent No. 1. The said cheque of Rs. 1,564/- was towards the full repurchase price, as declared by the Life Insurance Corporation Mutual Fund, as would be evident from document marked as Exhibit 1 in the complaint. It has been submitted that the amount of Rs. 7,820/- as mentioned in the letter dated 9.12.1998 by the appellant No. 2 was due to mistake and the correct amount of repurchase ought to have been Rs. 1,564/- which was already remitted to the complainant/respondent.

6. On consideration of the material on record, we find no scope for doubt that the whole of repurchase price of the 200 units of the complainant/respondent has been paid to him, vide the said cheque Exhibit 3 in his Account No. 8973 in Syndicate Bank, Station Road, Raipur. That being so, nothing remained to be paid to the complainant/respondent towards the price of the units purchased by the complainants.

7. The contention of the complainant appears to have based on the incorrect mentioning of the repurchase price as Rs. 7,820/- in their letter dated 9.12.1998 by the appellant No. 2. Obviously, such a mistake has led to litigation pending since about last 4 years. The complainants had to suffer expenses, as well as inconvenience due to the said mistake of the appellant No. 2, in communicating the wrong amount by the said letter dated 9.12.1998. Therefore, though the complainant are not entitled to Rs. 7,820/- towards repurchase price, as claimed by them, and as also ordered by the District Forum in the impugned order, but they are entitled to some compensation on account of mistake committed by appellant No. 2. Hence, though the impugned order deserves to be set aside, it appears just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant/respondent.

8. Accordingly this appeal