State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Preet Chandhoke vs American Express on 28 February, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.490 of 2005.
Date of Institution: 30.03.2005.
Date of Decision: 28.02.2011.
Preet Chandhoke son of Sh. Navtej Singh, Resident of 97-B, Bhai Randhir
Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
American Express, having its office relating Travel Related Services, Enkay
Centre, A, A-1, A-2, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana)
....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
12.08.2004 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate.
For the respondent : Exparte.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Preet Chandhoke, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), pleading that the appellant purchased traveller cheques worth 2000 US Dollars on 29.06.2001 from OP-1 (not made party in the present appeal) and made the payment of Rs.99,110/- in cash and a receipt was issued to him. An amount of Rs.94,100/- was towards the traveller cheques for 2000 US Dollars @ Rs.47.20p per dollar. The appellant also purchased 1000 First Appeal No.490 of 2005 2 Dollars in US currency @ Rs.47.10p per dollar and thus, Rs.99,110/- were paid in cash. The passport no.VE132116 was also mentioned in the cash memo issued by OP-1. The appellant has taken money from Sh. Maninderjit Singh and also has withdrawn Rs.1.00 lac from his account.
3. At the time of purchase of traveller cheques, the appellant was assured by OP-1 that in case the said cheques are lost or stolen, the full amount of these traveller cheques would be refunded. The appellant left India on 2nd July, 2001 by British Airways Flight no.142 and the bank drafts were got prepared by the employees of OP-1 on 2nd July, 2001. The appellant was also issued the traveller cheques no.GB 002 447-145 to 146. The appellant stayed in the hotel Metropole Hilton, London, upto 5th July, but did not use the traveller cheques and flew back from London to New Delhi on 5th July, 2001 by British Airways Flight and came back to Ludhiana.
4. The appellant has not used the said traveller cheques and he decided to get them redeemed on 16th July, 2001 and when checked his briefcase, he found that the said traveller cheques were lost. He informed the respondent on telephone about it and he was given claim no.012969- 770 on the telephone by a person, who identified herself as Deviani. The appellant was told that a worldwide alert has been sent and whosoever will encash the said traveller cheques, will be arrested. She also advised the appellant to get the report registered with the police and the appellant got recorded DDR no.20 dated 17.07.2001 with Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
5. The appellant made phone calls and submitted all the information along with documents and he called the respondent a number of times and sent the notices, but the replies given were wrong. The appellant also wrote letters through his Advocate, but the claim of the appellant was rejected without assigning any reason. It was prayed that the respondent be directed to refund 2000 Dollars or equivalent money in exchange with First Appeal No.490 of 2005 3 interest @ 18% from the date of purchase of the traveller cheques till repayment.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of OP-1, the preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed with malafide intention and the answering respondent has no role to play in the refund matter of any traveller cheque, except to confirm the sale of traveller cheques to the issuers and intimate the loss of traveller cheques, if any, to the concerned issuers at the request of the clients. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and agreement was between the appellant and the respondent (OP-2). On merits, similar pleas were repeated and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
7. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent (OP-2), similar preliminary objections were taken and in addition, it was further stated that the elaborate procedure for taking the evidence and examination of documents, is required and the appellant has failed to act as a prudent person in safeguarding the traveller cheques and the answering respondent cannot be held liable for the wrongful and negligent acts of the appellant. It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint as to how the traveller cheques were lost. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.
8. On merits, it was pleaded that the traveller cheques in US Dollars and other foreign currency, are issued by American Express Travel Related Services Company, including United Status of America. These traveller cheques are supplied to various sales outlets around the world for sale to the customers.
9. American Express Customers prefer to carry foreign exchange in the form of traveller cheques for various reasons such as security, loss or theft etc. and there is a clear-cut written contract between the purchaser and the issuer. The traveller cheques are sold by the customers and claim refund fraudulently, declaring the traveller cheques as lost. As per terms First Appeal No.490 of 2005 4 and conditions, it is clearly stated that the answering respondent will replace or refund the amount shown on any lost or stolen cheques, in accordance with the applicable laws and only if the requirements of the purchase agreement, are met. From the terms and conditions, it is clear that the answering respondent never guarantees that it can stop payment of any traveller cheque. The purchaser is bound to take care in safeguarding the traveller cheques and has to inform the answering respondent immediately in case of loss of traveller cheques as well as supply the numbers.
10. In the present case, the appellant purchased two traveller cheques totalling 2000 US Dollars from OP-1. As per the appellant, he was carrying both the traveller cheques in an envelope of LKP, kept in a diary which he was carrying. He saw the traveller cheques on 05.07.2001 at London Airport and detected the loss on 15.07.2001 at Ludhiana. From the version of the appellant, it is clear that he did not take care in safeguarding the traveller cheques. The appellant himself might have sold the traveller cheques and concocted the story. In para-wise reply, similar pleas were repeated and denying all other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
11. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
12. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the traveller cheques were lost and this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent immediately, and allowed the complaint, directing the respondent (OP-2) to make payment of the traveller cheques after ascertaining that the same have not been got encashed.
13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.08.2004, the appellant/complainant has come up in appeal.
First Appeal No.490 of 2005 5
14. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant.
15. The respondent has not contested the appeal and has been proceeded against exparte.
16. The only question involved in this appeal, is regarding the interest on the amount, as the District Forum has not awarded the interest and the prayer was made that the interest on the awarded amount, be allowed @ 18% p.a. from the date of raising of the claim till the actual payment.
17. We have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant.
18. The respondent has not challenged the impugned order passed by the District Forum dated 12.08.2004. The District Forum has directed the respondent to make the payment of traveller cheques after ascertaining whether the same have not been got encashed and also after complying with the other terms and conditions as well as on furnishing indemnity bond by the appellant, to the extent of the amount in question.
19. The District Forum has not awarded any interest, compensation or costs, but the prayer in the present appeal is regarding the award of interest only. We are of the opinion that the appellant is also entitled to interest on the amount of the traveller cheques from the date of the impugned order i.e. 12.08.2004 @ 7.5% interest per annum till realization.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of the District Forum is modified and the respondent is directed to pay interest on the amount of the traveller cheques, @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned order i.e. 12.08.2004 till realization. First Appeal No.490 of 2005 6
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.02.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member February 28, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)