PARAMJIT SINGH vs GENERAL MANAGER, D.E.S.U.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of District Forum No. II dated 29th March, 93. The grievance of the complainant is that wrong bills were issued to him by the O.P. respondent and that he had to visit their office about 10 times to get them rectified. He claimed that he was entitled to damages.

THE complaint was contested by the O.P. THEy controverted the allegations of the complainant However, they admitted that some mistakes crept in, in the bills bearing serial Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 7 due to wrong punch by computers and the mistake when detected, was rectified. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that one of the cheques given by the complainant was dishonoured and thus for a part of the inconvenience, he was responsible. Consequently, he was not entitled to any damages. He has come up in appeal.

The agent of the complainant has argued that the cheque was not dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account nor for any other default on the part of the complainant. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible, if the cheque was dishonoured. He further submits that the respondent even did not disclose to the complainant as to why the cheque was dishonoured. We have duly considered the argument. It is common knowledge that when a cheque is dishonoured by a Bank a memo containing, reasons for dishonouring the same is given to the, person who presents the cheque. It was the duty of the opposite party to have placed that memo on the file. However, it has not been done. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the cheque was dishonoured on account of some default on the part of the complainant The complainant has stated categorically in the complaint mat he had to visit the office of the D.E.S.U. about 10 times. The complainant is a registered medical practitioner and his one visit to the office of DESU means a great loss to him. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to damages from the respondent. No proof has been placed by the complainant regarding the actual loss suffered by him. Consequently, we grant him nominal damages amounting to Rs. 500/-.

THE opposite party may fix the responsibility as to why the complainant was required to visit the office of the DESU so many times and recover the amount of damages from the delinquent officials. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the appeal set-aside the order of the District Forum and grant Rs. 500/- as damages to the complainant. Costs Rs. 250/-. Appeal allowed with costs.