National Consumer Disputes Redressal
American Express Bank Ltd. vs Narender Kumar Rai on 15 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ161(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
2. Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna has directed the appellant to issue duplicate travellers cheque of 12000 USD in lieu of lost cheque, to pay interest @ 10% p.a. after two months from the date of claim was made by the complainant till the date of payment and to pay compensation for harassment amounting to Rs. 25,000 with cost of Rs. 1,000.
3. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellant American Express Bank Ltd. have filed the present appeal.
4. There is no dispute in this appeal that the complainant/respondent purchased travellers cheque amounting to 10,000 US D on 9.6.2001 and again of 2,000 US D on 9.7.2001 at Novosibirsk City of Russia while he was returning from Russia to his home country India. While the complainant was coming Patna from Delhi through Rajdhani Express on 19.7.2001, unfortunately, he lost his hand bag containing travellers cheque along with other valuable documents including passport, etc. He lodged complaint at Patna and a case was registered as SDE No. 709 dated 20.7.2001. He also immediately informed the Travellers Cheque Related Service about the loss of the Travellers Cheques and filed Claim No. 010300259-7 in the office of the appellant.
5. In response to the claim, he was asked to complete the enclosed claim format dated 14.2.2002 sent by the appellant. But all this exercise proved futile for on 2.4.2002 the appellant disapproved the claim of the complainant without any reason. The appellants contested this matter, inter alia, on the ground that the claim of the complainant was neither maintainable before the Consumer Fora nor cause of action or its part has arisen within the jurisdiction of Patna Forum. The complainant has not followed the terms and conditions of the agreement signed at the time of purchase of travellers cheque. The complainant was bound to promptly notify Amexco of the loss of the cheque along with the police report of Amexco. It was necessary for the complainant to declare at airport after coming from Russia before the Customs Authorities that he was entering India with foreign exchange worth Rs. 12,000 US D. This was not complied with.
6. Having considered the submission made and having gone through the record, it is apparent that there is no dispute about the issuance of the travellers cheque as alleged by the complainant after charging commission. There was also no dispute about the fact that the information has been sent to the appellant after informing the police and the appellant in response sent a letter dated 14.2.2002. That was duly done. Purchase agreement for Travellers Cheques provided refund after loss of the Travellers Cheque in following words:
Refund : American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc. ("Amexco") will replace or refund the amount shown on any loss or stolen cheque in accordance with applicable laws and only if you meet all of the requirements below:
Before Loss After Loss:
* You promptly notify Amexco of the loss or theft of the cheque.
* You promptly report all facts of the loss or theft to Amexco and also to the police if Amexco asks you to. * You promptly inform Amexco of the serial number of the lost or stolen cheque and the place and date of its purchase. * You promptly complete Amexco's refund forms and provide Amexco with acceptable proof of your identity. * You give Amexco all reasonable information and help requested to make a complete investigation of the loss or theft. Amex reserves the right to investigate the loss or theft and to verify compliance with this Purchase Agreement and shall not be responsible for any delays resulting from such an investigation. * Please note that for quality assurance purposes your telephone call to Amexco may be monitored or recorded and that you consent to such monitoring and recording.
7. It was contended that the respondent/complainant had not taken due care as a prudent person like amount of cash.
8. The purchase Agreement even documents of both the parties and the terms and conditions mentioned therein are also not in dispute except informing in general terms. The same Purchase Agreement clearly stipulates, inter alia that:
(a) the customer is bound to safeguard the TCs as a prudent person would safeguard like amount of cash;
(b) the customer, after loss should report all facts of the loss or theft to American Express and also to police if American Express requires the same;
(c) the customer, after loss has to give American Express all reasonable information and help to make a complete investigation of the loss/theft and American Express reserves the right to investigate the loss/theft and to verify compliance with the purchase agreement, and shall not be responsible for any delays resulting from such an investigation;
(d) the customer could not have used the TCs in violation of any law, including participation in any illegal bet, game of chance, or other prohibited action;
(e) the customer's TC should not have been taken by Court order or by Government action;
(f) American Express can never stop payment on any TC and expressly disclaims the ability to do so right at the outset.
9. That agreement of terms was clearly followed by the respondent herein. When a specific question was asked as to which of the conditions was not complied with and how? We did not get any satisfactory answer. One of the explanations was that there was no explanation as to the exact manner in which the event occurred. He was not safeguarding the T.Cs. as a prudent person. It cannot be accepted that he had not taken any due care and caution. In order to deny the claim, the opposite parties are trying to find unnecessary faults. It is not a case of isolated loss of Travellers cheque alone, the complainant had also lost his passport and valuable articles kept in the bag. It is not a case that all reasonable information was not included in the FIR and in the report sent. There is no dispute in the fact that the complaint was immediately lodged with the Railway Police and in the claim form with affidavit, he mentioned that no amount of the travellers cheque has been encashed by him. The bag was lost at Patna. No investigation report has been filed to doubt that there was some cloud about the version of the complainant. We are not inclined to accept that the appellant was not supposed to give the reason for refusal to replace or refund the amount of the travellers cheques.
10. If the bag was lost at Patna Station, the cause of action had arisen at Patna and within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, Patna. It cannot be said that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna has no jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are not inclined to accept that the State Commission, Bihar would not have any jurisdiction.
11. There are cases having different complexes and different colours. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment in the case of American Express Banks Ltd. Travel Related Services and Anr. v.
Rajesh Gupta and Ors. I (2000) CPJ 1 (NC). In that case, it was the third complaint made by the complainant about the loss of the travellers cheque though he claimed that his passport was also lost but he had received back the passport from some unidentified person. The complainant in this case according to the documents filed by the appellant is that he had purchased travellers cheque three times earlier also but he did not lost the same was the case of Rajesh Gupta (supra).
12. It is not the case of the appellant that these cheques were ever presented for encashment and they have paid after comparing the signatures of the complainant on those cheques. When the cheques were not utilised and were lost complainant/purchaser/consumer is entitled to get back the money. Otherwise, the person who issued these traverliers cheques would make an unjust enrichment and the purchaser would be unnecessarily made to suffer the loss. The appellant could have verified these facts as has been mentioned by the learned State Commission in its order with the help of all the facilities of computerisation and modern techniques.
13. In the aforementioned circumstances, we do not find any force in this appeal and is dismissed accordingly.