CANARA BANK Vs. PREM TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Etah in Complaint Case No.469/1993. Since the facts of the case in all the three appeals are similar, therefore, these appeals are being adjudicated by a single judgment. The facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) The complainant M/s. Prem Textiles, Railway Road, Gunjandwara, District Etah is engaged in the business of textiles and Sri Prem Chand Gupta is the sole proprietor of the said firm. The complainant had sent two bundles of clothes from Gunjundwara Railway Station to Khalilabad Railway Station through Railway Receipt No.485923, on 2.6.1993. The goods consigned were made for a customer M/s. Handloom Cloth Stores at Gorakhpur. The ownership of the goods was intended to be passed only after the cost had been paid by the said customer. The railway receipt alongwith bill were handed over by the complainant to Canara Bank, Gunjandwara on 3.6.1993 for collection of payment before delivery of railway receipt to the customer concerned. Canara Bank, Gunjandwara sent the above railway receipt to Punjab National Bank, Urdu Bazar Branch, Gorakhpur vide registered letter No.2746 dated 3.6.1993 for collection of payment. The registered letter was delivered to Punjab National Bank on 7.6.1993 by the concerned Post Office. The registered letter containing the railway receipt was not entered in the 'receipt register' of the Bank and the employee concerned of the Punjab National Bank appears to have handed over the railway receipt to the party concerned without collection of payment of the bill and the party concerned took delivery of the goods fraudulently from the Railways in collusion with the Bank employees. The complainant approached the Canara Bank, Gunjandwara and proceeded to Gorakhpur with the letter of Canara Bank for Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur. On 6.9.1993 the Bank made an enquiry on the letter of Canara Bank and found that no railway receipt has been received. This has resulted into considerable loss to the complainant. The value of the goods sent was Rs.31,517/-.

(3.) The oppoite party inspite of repeated demands and requests were not willing to pay the amount. Hence a complaint was lodged in the District Consumer Forum, Etah. The relief asked by the complainant is value of the goods amounting to Rs.31,517/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% from 15.7.1993 to 25.11.993 and travelling expenses of Rs.1,000/-.