NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

(From the Order dated 22.12.2005 in Appeal No. 567 of 2004 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, Uttaranchal)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1    : MR. SANJEEV BHATNAGAR, ADVOCATE.

FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 4 : MR. ARUN AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE.

PRONOUNCED ON         : 13.02.2009

        Petitioner was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short).

        Complainant/respondent no.1- M/s. Krishna Powerloom Factory, Kundeshwari (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complainant’ for short) is a registered firm and is engaged in business of manufacture of clothes at Kundeshwari, Tehsil Kashipur, District Nanital. On 04.12.1989, complainant through respondent no.2- Bank of Baroda deposited Hundi Builties along with copies of the bills in the name of respondent no.3- Janta Vastralaya, Cloth Merchant against bill nos. 429, 430, 431 and 432 dated 02.12.1989 for Rs.7,122.40, Rs.9,724.20, Rs.19,151.20 and Rs.3,912.75, respectively totalling                   Rs. 39, 910.35 and also R.R. No. 97251 for recovery of amount of builties from respondent no.3. Respondent no.2 was directed to pay the amount to the Complainant after recovering the same from the petitioner-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’ for short). Respondent no.2 neither recovered the amount from the petitioner nor gave any information to the complainant. Complainant sent a notice to respondent no.2 through its Advocate seeking payment of the amount but no payment was made. Complainant also sent a registered letter to the petitioner regarding the payment of the amount. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint.

        Bank of Baroda (respondent no. 2 herein), in its written statement, took the preliminary objection that the complaint was not a consumer and, therefore, the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That in the absence of Indian Postal and Telegraph Department, which was a necessary party, the complaint could not proceed. It was further stated that respondent no.2 had sent the Hundi Builty to the petitioner. In spite of sending several letter and telegrams, petitioner did not respond to it.

The petitioner-Punjab National Bank, in its written statement, took the stand that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant and they are not liable to make the payment. It was stated that they had received a registered envelope from the complainant on 13.12.1989, which was sent by Bank of Baroda, Kashipur Branch in which there was no railway receipt (R.R.) or bills sent by the complainant. There was only simple postcard in which Deepak Textiles, Kashipur District Moradabad (U.P.) was mentioned and letter dated 03.12.1989 was found in which Deepak Textiles was noted down. The Branch Manager of Kukraha Branch of the Bank sent the postcard to the written address, which was returned, and a letter was written to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Kashipur on 16.01.1990, which was not immediately replied. On 12.02.1990, an inland letter of the complainant was received in which it was written that the railway receipt, which was sent, was received by          Shri Ram Prasad on 15.12.1989 from the petitioner-Bank and the goods have also been delivered by the Railway Department to the said Shri Ram Prasad. The said letter was replied on 16.02.1990 and, thereafter, on 12.04.1990, F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner with the Itari Police Station. On investigation it was found that there was no firm in the name of Janta Vastralaya in Itari and there was also no person in the name of Shri Ram Prasad and it was further revealed that there was a cloth merchant in Itari in the name of Shri Ram Prasad Kesari s/o Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad who died in the year 1987. According to them, a fraud had been committed.

Parties led their evidence. The District Forum by its Order dated 06.08.2001, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.39,597.85 to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 18.12.1989 till the date of actual payment.

        Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, Uttaranchal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), which has been dismissed by the impugned Order dated 22.12.2005.

        Aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

        The State Commission found that the Railway Receipt (R.R.) dated 03.12.1989 was duly endorsed by the petitioner-Bank by putting its stamp. The senders/consignee name written on R.R. is M/s. Krishna Powerloom Factory and the consignors name is Janta Vastralaya. From this, the State Commission concluded that it was evident that the builty, which was sent by the complainant, was received by the petitioner who duly endorsed it. That there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not delivering the builty to the authorized person.

        Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

        Counsel for the parties have taken us through the Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission as well as the evidence led by before the District Forum.

        The point that the complaint is not a consumer was not pressed before us.

On examining the builty (photocopy of which is on record), we find that respondent no.2-Bank of Baroda had endorsed the builty to the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner-Bank, on receipt of it, put its seal and its endorsement number. From the examination of the builty, it is evident that the petitioner had received the builty but it failed to deliver the same to respondent no.3-Janta Vastralaya or return it to respondent no. 2-Bank of Baroda or the consignor/complainant. Except for denying in the written statement, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of the fact that the stamp put on the builty was not that of the petitioner-Bank or that the same was fake. Petitioner failed to produce its registers to show that the endorsement number assigned on the builty has not been made by the petitioner.

        It has also not denied that its employee had made endorsement on the builty. We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service in handing over the builty to either respondent no. 3-Janta Vastralaya or to return the same to respondent no.2-Bank of Baroda or the consignor/complainant in case it did not find any shop in the name of Janta Vastralaya. The railway receipt was sent to one Shri Ram Prasad on 15.12.1989 and on presentation, the Railway Department released the goods to Shri Ram Prasad.

        For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs, which are assessed at Rs.2,000/-.

                                                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                (ASHOK BHAN J.)

                                                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .