P.C.JANARDHANAN vs Manager, Indian Bank

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP. No. 424/94. The complainant is the appellant.

SHORTLY stated, the allegations in the complaint are as follows : The complainant is running a small tea shop at Anappara Junction. On 28.12.1993 he took a Demand Draft for Rs. 50,000/- from the Indian Bank, Vithura Branch in the name of Jayakumar who is the brother of the complainant. The said draft was payable at all branches in Bombay. The draft was taken for the purpose of an employment for his son at Riyadh. As per the conditions of the Visa Agency at Bombay the complainant''s son ought to have reached Riyadh on or before the 15th of January 1994. The complainant took the demand draft to Bombay and handed over the draft to his brother at Bombay who gave the demand draft to the Central Bank of India, Bombay for collection. But it was not encashed and the reason stated was the Code number and the name of the issuing branch were not mentioned in the D.D. The complainant therefore alleged that he could not encash the D.D. due to the negligence of the opposite party. On a perusal of the draft issued by the first opposite party it was seen that the Code number and the name of the issuing branch were not written on the D.D. and so the payable Bank returned the same. The complainant''s son lost his job and the complainant suffered mental agony and suffering. The first opposite party filed a version admitting that there was omission in mentioning the Code number and name of the issuing branch. But it was not a serious omission. It was also contended the Bank which is to encash was not made a party and therefore the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Before the District Forum complainant was examined as PW 1 and Exts. P1 to P6 (a) were marked. The second opposite party was examined as DW 1 and Exts. Dl to D3 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.

THE District Forum found that the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It also found that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not mentioning the Code number and the name. However, it is found that there is no evidence to support the compensation claimed by the complainant, or to show that the complainant went to Bombay with the demand draft and handed over the same to his brother. It also found that the case that because of non-encashment of the amount the complainant''s son could not go to Riyadh also cannot be believed. THE District Forum observed that Ext. P6 would show that the date of expiry of Visa of Janardhanan to Riyadh was noted as 6.10.1994 and that indicates that his son had time till 18.3.1994 to reach Riyadh. Ext. Dl shows that the disputed demand draft was encashed on 17.1.1994. In this view, the complaint was dismissed. Of course we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding that there is evidence to show that the complainant''s son could not go on account of encashment of the amount. However, having found that there is deficiency it cannot be assumed that the complainant has not suffered any mental agony. In this contextwe may refer to the decision of the National Commission in Ashok Kumar Singh v. M/s. Gujarat Cycles Ltd. & Another, 1992 (2) CPR 447. In that case the National Commission considered the finding of the State Commission that the complainant did not adduce any detailed evidence furnishing particulars of the nature of inconvenience caused to the complainant and observed that the finding did not appeal to them as correct or sound and the Forums constituted under the Act have to take a realistic and pragmatic view of the matters coming before them and where it is manifest that real inconvenience has been caused to the complainant by reason of the goods supplied to him by the opposite party being defective in material respects, it is the duty of the Forum to determine what would be the reasonable compensation payable in respect of such inconvenience.

IN the light of this decision and having regard to the materials placed it has to be held that the District Forum erred in denying compensation. The amount was deposited on 28.4.1993 and ultimately after rectifying the defects the complainant could encash the D.D. only on 18.1.1994. The non-cashment of the D.D. would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant. Taking into account all the circumstances we feel that it would be reasonable to award an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. The complainant also will be entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 250/-. The appeal is disposed of as above. Appeal disposed of.