Liability for negligence in handling cheques during transit is upheld in consumer disputes; compensation awarded is justified.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the against the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra camp at Chamba, whereby complaint filed by the complainant under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act) was partly allowed against the opposite party No. 1 only which was directed to make payment of Rs. 25,000 as compensation for deficiency of service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order failing which interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment was payable. The opposite party No. 1 was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant presented cheque No. 478371 dated 14.12.2016 in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs drawn on PNB, Sultanpur, District Chamba to the opposite party No. 1 on 29.12.2016 to credit the same in his saving account. When the amount of this cheque was not credited in his account, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 to inquire about the status of the cheque. He was informed by the opposite party No. 1 that his cheque was sent for clearance to PNB, Sultanpur, District Chamba vide letter dated 30.12.2016 through the opposite party No. 2. As the cheque amount was not credited to the account of the complainant despite legal notice, hence this complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the cheque till actual payment and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

4. The opposite parties have resisted and contested this complaint. The opposite party No. 1 in its reply has admitted that the complainant had presented the cheque in question, but pleaded that the same was sent for collection to the concerned bank through the opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The opposite party No. 1 has maintained that it is not liable for the relief claimed. Hence prayer for dismissal of this complaint has been made.

5. The opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not availed any services from it, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable against it. Hence, a prayer for dismissal of this complaint has been made.

6. The complainant filed rejoinder in which the contents of the replies filed by the opposite parties were denied and the averments contained in the complaint were reiterated.

7. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.

8. The learned District Forum below after hearing the parties and going through the records partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party No. 1 has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the pleas set up and evidence led on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 in true prospective and as such the same is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. It has been further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Fora below is also on very higher side.

10. We have heard Mr. Manoj Chauhan ,Advocate, vice Counsel for the appellant / opposite party No. 1 and Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 / complainant and Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent / opposite party No. 2 and also carefully gone through the record on file.

11. The learned Co