AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 03.08.2016 allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that:
"..... 6. It is admitted fact that the cheque in question was lost when it was sent through courier by the opposite parties - bank for clearance. It is not the case of the complainant that some other person received the amount of the cheque by misusing it. In our view, complainant is still entitled to recover the amount of the cheque from the concerned person, who issued the earlier cheque. However, keeping in mind the circumstances that OPs were duty bound to collect the amount of the cheque and the complainant is suffering unnecessarily without any fault of him since the year 2010, we are of the view that it will be justified if an amount of Rs. 1 lac is awarded as compensation to the complainant for his sufferings and mental agony etc. We order accordingly. Both the OPs are directed to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally within a period of one month from today, failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from today till its realization. OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant."
(para 6 of the Order)
The opposite party appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 09.10.2017 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that:
"..... 8. .......... OPs asked him to obtain another cheque from the concerned firm. It was not possible for complainant to obtain fresh cheque from that company because a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act was already pending in between them, which is clear from the perusal of copies Ex. C-8 and Ex. C-9. When litigation is already pending in between the parties, one will not oblige other person by issuing fresh cheque. Had the litigation not been pending in between them then it could have been a different matter. More so it has been opined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Citibank N.A. vs. Geekay Agropack Private Limited and another 2009 (1) CPJ 16 and opinion of Hon'ble National Commission in State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr. vs. T. Ganga Rao and Anr. that when there is fault on the part of the bank it can be directed to pay compensation to the complainant for mental harassment etc. These findings are fully applicable in the present case. Nothing is left to be discussed after the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case law. Impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed."
(Para 8 of the Order)
This revision has been filed by the opposite party under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 09.10.2017 of the State Commission.
We have heard the learned counsels for both sides, and perused the record.
Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below:
".....to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
The State Commission's Order dated 09.10.2017 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.
There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
The revision petition is dismissed.