State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
American Express Banking Corp. vs Sushma Agarwal on 31 May, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 31.05.2013 Case No. FA-892/09 (Arising from the order dated 5.11.09 passed in Complaint Case No. 889/04 by the District Consumer Forum (New Delhi), Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.) AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORP. - APPELLANT Cyber City, Tower C, DLF Building No.8 DLF City, Phase II, Gurgoan-122 002. Versus SUSHMA AGARWAL - RESPONDENT R/O B-10, Gharonda Apartment, Shreshta Vihar, New Delhi. Through: Sh. Y.K. Maghan CORAM : V.K. GUPTA - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) S.C. JAIN - MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
V.K. GUPTA (ORAL)
1. This appeal by the Complainant of the Complaint Case No. 889/04 is directed against the order dated 5.11.09 of the District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, issuing direction for the refund of Rs. 50,000/- (USD 1000x50), Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as the litigation charges.
2. Briefly stated the factual scenario is that the Complainant/Respondent purchased some traveler cheques of American Express from Delhi Tourism Development Corporation on 5.6.2003 as she was going to USA and after coming from the USA, she was left with US $ 1000 of American Express Traveler cheques, the particulars of which is mentioned in Para 4 of the complaint. In order to deposit the same with Delhi Tourism Development Corporation in Connaught Place, the complainant/respondent signed the traveler cheques on both the corners and kept it in a purse along with her passport and gave it to her husband for depositing the same. The Husband of the complainant/respondent kept the purse in his Briefcase and proceeded by car to deposit the same with Delhi Tourism Development Corporation. However, on 7.7.03, he went to the Bank in Connaught Place near Madras Hotel for purchase of medicine from M/s Chaturbhuj Brothers and parked the car nearby. But unfortunately on his return to the car, he found the said briefcase missing and immediately the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged and the information was also given to the appellant/OP. The Appellant/OP informed that the said traveler cheques have not been encashed till then and the claim will be honoured after appropriate verification procedure. It was also informed by the complainant that the said traveler cheques were countersigned on both lower and upper left corner but to the utter surprise of the complainant, she received a letter on 18.9.03 from the appellant/OP that the said traveler cheques have been encashed in as much as it has been sent by the complainant. The complainant claims the refund of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as compensation and litigation charges.
3. OP has filed the reply and denied the entire allegations and contented that the case was wrongly instituted. It further contended that as per terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement, which was executed between the parties, governs the relationship between the complainant and the respondent and the complainant in gross violation of the said Agreement, had not only signed the Traveler cheques on the upper left corner and lower left corner but wrongly handed over the TCs to another person to hold. The Traveler cheques could only be returned even after they were not signed but the case in hand, some other person has encashed as the complainant has signed on both the places.
4. The District Forum vide order dated 5.11.09 directed the appellant/OP to refund Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the OP preferred this appeal.
6. On the date of hearing of the appeal, no authorized counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellant and only the Proxy Counsel appeared for the Appellant. The Respondent is present in person, therefore, we have heard the Respondent present in person we well as Proxy Counsel for the Appellant.
7. It has been submitted by the appellant that since the traveler cheques were signed by the complainant on left corner and right corner against the terms and conditions of the Agreement, therefore, District Forum committed grave error in allowing the complaint. On the other hand, it argued by the Respondent present in person that the District Forum has not committed any error and although the traveler cheques were signed by the complainant on both the sides and they were handed over him for depositing the same.
8. It is admitted case of both the parties that the Traveler cheques were issued by the appellant/OP for the use of the same in the USA and after returned from USA, some Traveler Cheques were unused and after signed on both the places, they were handed over to the Husband who was going to appellant/OP Bank for surrender of the same but they were stolen from the car, which was parked infront of the Chemist Shop. It a matter of common observation that a common man may not be information that the Traveler cheques are not supposed to be signed on both the places and they should be signed at one place but signed at both the places will invalid the Traveler cheques in as much as they are only for being surrendered by the complainants Husband himself.
The Husband of the complainant lodged FIR and after that it was informed by the appellant/OP that they are not being encashed. The Traveler cheques were encashed on 22.7.03. Information with regard to the theft of the Traveler cheques were given by the Husband of the complainant immediately after lodging the FIR on 7.7.2003, therefore, it does not stand to any reason as to how the Traveler cheques were encashed on 22.7.2003 and why the Appellant/OP Bank allowed for the encashment. When the information was received by the Appellant/OP with regard to the theft of the Traveler cheques, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant/OP to stop the payment, which has not been done.
Obviously, there is a sheer negligence on the part of the Appellant/OP and we are no hesitation in saying that the Officer/officials of the Appellant/OP Bank inconspiracy with others has deliberately did not stop the payment and encashed the same.
9. We do not find any illegality or irregularity of the impugned order, therefore, appeal is dismissed.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and one copy be sent to the District Forum (New Delhi) to place it on record, thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. The FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant as per rule.
(V.K. GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (S.C. JAIN) MEMBER rn