VIJAYA BANK Vs. NECTOR BEVERAGES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions (R.P. No. 4201 of 2007 and R.P. No. 49 of 2008) have been filed by Vijaya Bank (here in after referred to as the "Petitioner No. 1")and Bank of Baroda (here in after referred to as the "Petitioner No. 2") respectively, being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (here in after referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 1515/2007 in favour of M/s. Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No. 1 here in, who was the original complainant before the District Forum. The facts of the case according to the Respondent No. 1 are that it had a unit for bottling aerated water and soft drinks and to sell its products in the market, it had appointed authorized agents and distributors one of whom is Respondent No. 2 (M/s. Sri Sai Ram Traders) at Bellary. Respondent No. 2 had issued a cheque No. 129473 to Respondent No. 1 for Rs. 1,80,000 drawn on Canara Bank, Bellary towards part payment of dues to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 presented the said cheque to Petitioner No. 2 (Bank of Baroda) for collection since it had an account with that bank. However, Respondent No. 1 noted that the cheque amount had not been credited into its account and nor was the same returned to it, even though, Respondent No. 1 made several requests and also wrote a number of letters to Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2, however, took the plea that it had sent the instrument to Petitioner No. 1 (Vijaya Bank) at Bellary for collection but Petitioner No. 1 replied that they had not received the cheque and thereafter informed that it had been misplaced.

(2.) Aggrieved by this, Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and causing loss and requested that Petitioner No. 2 (Bank of Baroda) and Respondent No. 2 (M/s. Sri Sai Ram Traders) be directed to pay Respondent No. 1, Rs. 1,80,000 along with interest @ 24% from the date of presentation of cheque and litigation costs.

(3.) Petitioner No. 2 denied that there was any deficiency in service on its part and stated that on receipt of the cheque presented by Respondent No. 1, it was sent to Petitioner No. 1 (Vijaya Bank) at Bellary for collection but it was Petitioner No. 1 which neither released the cheque nor returned the same to Petitioner No. 2 on the ground that it was misplaced in the office of Petitioner No. 1 at Bellary and sought Petitioner No. 2's help to obtain a duplicate instrument from its customer.