Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OPs/respondents by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant was no more a consumer, as his loan account had already been closed by then.  Moreover, the claim of the complainant was time-barred.  In parawise reply to the complaint, however, the OPs/respondents admitted that certain cheques bearing No. 22497, 22499 and 22500 were wrongly and mistakenly deposited by their Manager, which was a human error.  The OPs stated in their reply as follows:-

"In reply to contents of para No. 13 of the complaint, the respondent states and submits that, the cheques bearing No. 22497, 22499 and 22500 were wrongly and mistakenly deposited by the Manager.  There was no any intention of the respondents to recover the amount against the said cheque from the complainant.  The act of deposit of the said cheque is a human error and as such no serious harm or prejudice is caused to the complainant.  On receipt of the complaint from the complainant in respect of the same, the concerned Manager had tendered apology and had shown readiness and willingness to pay the charges levied by the bankers to the complainant. "

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       As stated above, the OP Finance Company has admitted in their written reply filed before the District Forum that due to some 'human error' on the part of their manager, certain cheques were presented for encashment before the Bank of the complainant, although the repayment of the entire amount due to the OPs had already been made.  It is evident, therefore, that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Finance Company and they were liable to compensate the complainant/petitioner on this score. The consumer fora below have, therefore, rightly concluded that there was such deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony to the complainant/petitioner and they awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation.  In so far as charging excess amount from the complainant/petitioner is concerned, or the loss suffered by him due to any sale of house is concerned, there is no evidence to that effect on record, neither any cogent and convincing explanation has been presented to believe the version given by the petitioner/complainant in his consumer complaint.  We have, therefore, no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the consumer fora below.  Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should be made only, if there is any jurisdictional error or material defect in the orders passed by the consumer fora below.  We are supported in this view in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rubi Chandra Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269]."