1998 (7) TMI 564 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Deficiency in service by the 1st opposite party in not paying the matured amount to the complainant.
2. Liability of the 1st opposite party in case of fraud committed during transit of the cheques.
3. Validity of the District Forum's award including compensation for mental agony.

Analysis:
1. The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party for not paying the matured amount to the complainant. The complainant had purchased 3,000 units from the 1st opposite party, which matured on a specific date. Despite sending cheques by registered post, the complainant did not receive the payment as the posts were delivered to a third party who encashed the cheques. The District Forum awarded the complainant the matured amount along with compensation for mental agony and costs of the proceedings.

2. The appellant/1st opposite party contended that the order of the District Forum was not sustainable, claiming that they had sent the matured amount by cheques under registered post and fraud occurred during transit. However, the Commission disagreed with this argument, stating that the 1st opposite party was liable to pay the matured amount to the complainant regardless of the fraud committed by other parties during transit. The Commission held that the 1st opposite party cannot evade liability by simply sending cheques by registered post, especially when the amount was not received by the complainant due to the actions of third parties.

3. The Commission upheld the District Forum's decision, emphasizing that the 1st opposite party's obligation to pay the matured amount remained unaffected by the fraudulent actions of other parties involved in the transit of the cheques. The Commission found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the District Forum's award of the matured amount to the complainant along with compensation for mental agony. The appeal was dismissed with costs imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of the 1st opposite party's responsibility to ensure payment of the matured amount to the complainant, despite any fraudulent activities during the transit of the cheques. The decision reinforced the principle that sending cheques by registered post does not absolve the party of its liability to the consumer.