ANTHONY C VAZ Vs. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Appeal is the order of the District Forum, North Goa, dated 20.9.1999, in Complaint No.206/98. By the aforesaid order the learned Forum partly allowed the complaint only so far the opposite party/respondent No.1 is concerned and dismissed it against the opposite party/respondent No.2.

(2.) The appellant's case is that he had received in the month of April, 1998 two dividend warrants of the total value of Rs.140/- issued by the opposite party/respondent No.1. The warrants were sought to be encashed from the respondent No.2 through his Bankers at Panaji. The respondent No.2 returned the two warrants without making the payment, with the remarks "no advice". Since in the meantime the validity of the warrants had expired, the same were sent to the opposite party/respondent No.1 for revalidation which was granted upto 31st July, 1998. The appellant then presented the revalidated warrants for collection through his Bankers on 21st July, 1998 but again the warrants were dishonoured by opposite party/respondent No.2 on the same ground of "no advice", despite a letter, dated 12th June, 1998, having been despatched to them by the Industrial Financial Branch of the State Bank of India, Chandigarh, bearing No. IFB/cd/adg/98-99/205. The appellant therefore claimed compensation under various heads including the value of the warrants, besides damages and costs, vide his complaint dated 5th August, 1998 filed against the respondent No.1 only. However, in view of the stand taken by the opposite party/respondent No.1 in the aforesaid complaint and its contention that respondent No.2 was not justified in not honouring the two warrants, a Notice was sent to the opposite party/respondent No.2, dated 10th October, 1998, seeking to know its stand consequent upon the contention raised by respondent No.1 before the Forum. The respondent No.2, however, failed to reply to the notice the reason why the appellant was compelled to implead the respondent No.2 also in the complaint. Before the Forum, the respondent No.2 contended that the letter, dated 12th June, 1998 issued by its Industrial Finance Branch was not binding on it and that, unless they received intimation from its local Head Office at Mumbai, the two dividend warrants could not be honoured. The District Forum ultimately agreed with the view taken by the respondent No.2 and by the impugned order disallowed the appellant's claim against them.

(3.) We have gone through the records and we have also perused the impugned order. In our view, the grievances of the appellants are sound and well conceived. The finding of the Forum in disallowing the appellant's claim against the respondent No.2 is impermissible and cannot be supported either in facts or in law. Apart from the obvious incorrection on the part of the Forum, which might have been caused by a mere typing mistake, in referring to the Industrial Finance Branch of the S. B. of India as Industrial Bank, the subsequent Forum's mention of the same Branch as Industrial Finance Corporation is likely to be attributed to a clear non-application of mind in the same line of thought which prompted the Forum to record another wrong finding that the Industrial Finance Branch of the S. B. I. , Chandigarh, was not a sister concern of the State Bank of India. Indeed, the learned Forum seems to have grossly overlooked the documentary evidence available on the file, namely, the endorsements printed on the back of the two warrants, the letter dated 12th June, 1998 of the Industrial Finance Branch of the S. B. I. addressed to all the State Bank of India Branches, including the Panaji Branch and the letter dated 4th July, 1998 of the respondent No.2 to the appellant when it chose to ignore that the respondent No.2, being a listed Branch, was bound to effect the payment of the two warrants. Being so, the question of the respondent No.2 having no authority to honour the dividend warrants could not even arise and its obstinate refusal to clear the warrants is to be held, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as a clear deficiency in service.