STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. VANEESH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, two appeals (Nos.52 and 53 of 1999) are being disposed of as they have been filed challenging orders of District Forum, Amritsar, dated 2nd November, 1998 in each case. In both the cases, the questions of fact and law are similar. In Appeal No.52 of 1999, the District Forum passed the following impugned order in Complaint No.577 of 1998. "we are of the considered view that opposite party No.1, State Bank of Patiala is guilty of deficiency in performance of services. They neither returned the documents nor paid the amount after recovery from the consignee. Accordingly, we accept the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/- against the State Bank of Patiala, oppostie party No.1 with direction to pay Rs.21,250/- being the price of the goods with interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of entrustment of the documents till the date of payment. The complaint is dismissed against opposite parties No.2 and 3. " main judgment is prepared in Appeal No.52 of 1999 filed by State Bank of Patiala. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum, Amritsar, the appellant before us was opposite party No.1 before the District Forum. Vide its impugned order the opposite party No.1/appellant has been held deficient in rendering the service. The fabric of the relevant facts weaving the present case are very short. The complainant Sh. Vaneesh Aggarwal is proprietor of M/s. V. K. Textiles, Chowk Ghanta Ghar, Amritsar. The complainant sold blankets to Amit Textiles Pipra Bjurg (U. P.) against Bill No.1270 dated 27.12.1996 for Rs.21,250/-. The goods were sent through M/s. Rajdhani Interstate Transport Co. (Regd.) inside Ghee Mandi, Amritsar and as per instructions the Bank-opposite party No.1 was to deliver these documents to the consignee against payment. The Bank was to make the payment to the complainant after deducting commission charges. The State Bank of Patiala-opposite party No.1 sent the documents to the Punjab National Bank, Pipra Bjurg, District Devoria (U. P.) through registered post vide Postal Receipt No.978 through the agency of opposite party No.3 on 3.1.1997 under their own arrangement for collection of sale proceeds. The complainant neither received payment; nor documents back from the opposite party No.1, State Bank of Patiala. It was, however, revealed from M/s. Rajdhani Interstate Transport Co. (Regd.) that the goods had been delivered to the consignee on 10.1.1997 against proper discharge of G. R. to Punjab National Bank. The consignee firm also confirmed having taken delivery of consignment sent by the complainant. The complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Amritsar seeking relief, the opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The District Forum after considering the merits of the case keeping in view the documents and evidence passed the impugned order as referred above.

(2.) We have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records on the file. It is pleaded that transaction is a sham transaction. The opposite party No.1 admitted that the registered letter was sent to P. N. B. , Pipra Bjurg, containing documents was not received back by opposite party No.1 undelivered. The documents have neither been returned nor the sale proceeds have been paid to the complainant. After hearing the learned Counsel, we find that the stand taken by the appellant is certainly incorrect and has been repelled by the other respondents as would be evident from the impugned order. The first opposite party/appellant filed a version admitting that the complainant had sold blankets to M/s. Amit Textiles, Pipra Bjurg, against Bill No.1270 dated 27.12.1996 for Rs.21,250/- and the goods were sent through M/s. Rajdhani Transport Co. , Ghee Mandi, Amritsar, vide G. R. No.928428 dated 27.12.1996 and all the documents were entrusted to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 also admitted that the documents so received from the complainant were sent to the opposite party No.2 through registered post. It was also admitted that the complainant took up the matter with the opposite party No.1 and had pressed either for payment or for return of documents. The opposite party No.1 did not admit its liability for any deficiency in service. We do not find on record to prove that the complainant had any privity of contract for service with the Punjab National Bank or post office for sending the documents to the consignee. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua Punjab National Bank, opposite party No.2 and Postal Authorities-opposite party No.3. Thus, we cannot hold opposite party Nos.2 and 3 for any liability.

(3.) It is admitted that the documents were entrusted to opposite party No.1 for collection of the amount. We are unable to accept the submission that the opposite party/appellant acted with due diligence and it did not deviate from the established procedure as per instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. No instructions of Reserve Bank of India were placed on record before the District Forum. The documents were accepted by the opposite party No.1, well knowing the fact that the opposite party does not have any branch office at Pipra Bjurg, District Devoria (U. P. ). This fact was not made known to the customer/consumer. To send the documents to consignee through Punjab National Bank at Pipra Bjurg, Distt. Devoria was internal arrangement between the two Banks i. e. , opposite party No.1, State Bank of Patiala and opposite party No.2, Punjab National Bank. The complainant is not expected to know the internal arrangements. The complainant hired the services of opposite party No.1 and entrusted all the documents. The opposite party sent such documents under their own arrangement for collection of the sale proceeds. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to sale proceeds from opposite party No.1 after deduction of their charges. The complainant is a consumer qua opposite party No.1 only. We do not agree in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence with the contention that the transaction between the complainant and the consignee is a sham transaction and as such the opposite party No.1 is not liable. Opposite party No.1 if under any term of which the opposite party No.2 is to indemnify the opposite party No.1, inter alia, against any claim in such like cases may pursue separately, if so advised.