M.L. Sahni, Member—The short facts of the case in this appeal are that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. Five lakh from OP American Express Bank to be returned in 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 14,950 each. As a security of the loan 48 post-dated cheques were issued by the complainant in favour of OP Bank. When 25 instalments had already been paid, the complainant wanted to replace the remaining 23 cheques by issuing new cheques drawn on IDBI Bank, to which the OP Bank agreed. Though the OP were handed over 23 fresh cheques in place of the earlier cheques issued in favour of OP No. 1 drawn on the HDFC Bank, they did not return the old cheques. Instead they sent the cheques through OP No.2 Blue Dart Courier Company which was received in a torn envelope and containing 12 cheques only along with an unsigned note addressed to the complainant which reads as below after translation:

“To Ms Tejender Kohi, Bank ka paisa Diya Nahi Jata To Paisa Lete Kyon Ho. Is se Accha to yeh hai ke Bheekh Mang Lo. Jiska Pet Maang Kar Bharta Hai Wo Bheekh Hi Maang Sakta Hai. Bhikhario”.

2. The complainant immediately filed a written complaint on 1.7.2006 on the same day when the envelope was received, at the Police Station, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and thereafter two legal notices were also sent to the OP demanding, inter alia, return of 11 cheques.

3. The complainant, thereafter filed a complaint against both the Ops, namely the Bank and the Blue Dart Courier Service alleging deficiency in service, negligence and defamation on the part of the Ops and claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakh and also costs of litigation.

4. Both the Ops (the Bank and the Blue Dart Courier Company) filed separate written statements and opposed the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum on the basis of material produced before it, opined that as per the principles of natural justice, the OP No.1 was required to return the utilized cheques forthwith when, they accepted the fresh cheques in substitution of those issued earlier, but they did not do so, and instead sent 12 cheques to re-place 23 cheques with a note, contents of which were “sufficient to give the person (complainant) sleepless nights as it is direct inflicting of mental agony”, and directed the OP No.

1-the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. Fifty thousand to the complainant/respondent for causing the latter mental agony, harassment and for deficiency in service with Rs. Ten thousand as cost of litigation.

6. Aggrieved by this order, now the OP No.1 has filed this appeal on variety of grounds, inter alia, that 23 unutilized cheques were returned through respondent No. 2 the Couriers, on 30.6.2002; that the envelope containing the 23 cheques duly stamped as cancelled, ruled out any possibility of cheques being encashed or misused in any manner and since the respondent/complainant admittedly received the envelope, no default can be attributed to the appellant. Even then, if the respondent had any grievance, it could only be against the courier service, because appellant is not a party to the dispute between the respondent No.1/complainant and the respondent No.2, the courier company who had been arraigned as OP No.2 in the complaint by the respondent/complainant herself.

7. We have carefully considered the above stated contentions and find the same totally fallacious. There cannot be any dispute between respondent No.1/complainant and the respondent No.2 the Courier Company because it was the appellant who chose to hire the services of the respondent No. 2 to deliver the swapped cheques to the respondent/complainant and assuming there was deficiency in service, if any, on the part of respondent No. 2, right accrues to the appellant alone to ask for indemnifying the appellant or the complainant/ respondent No. 1.

8. The respondent No. 1/complainant has rightly submitted that she was entitled to receive her all the 23 cheques out of which only 12 cheques were delivered to her in a crumbled envelo