STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Bank which was the Opposite Party before the State Commission has filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.08 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Complaint Case No. C -36/20007 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the complaint has directed the Appellant Bank to pay a lump -sum compensation of Rs.50,000/ - including costs of litigation to the Respondent. Appellant Bank was directed to return all the hundis in its possession to the Respondent within a month. FACTS: -

(2.) ON being served, the Appellant Bank entered appearance and filed its written statement taking the preliminary objections; that the State Commission, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint as the cause of action had arisen in Bhopal, that the complainant was not a 'consumer ' as the services of the Appellant Bank were availed for 'commercial purposes '; that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action had arisen in 1997 whereas the complaint was filed in 2000. On merits, it was pleaded that the Appellant Bank had returned the original unpaid bill of exchange to the Respondent through Value Payable Post (VPL) however the same were received back with the postal remarks "refused '; that the Bank could not be made liable to pay compensation for withholding the documents when the documents were returned by the Respondent. State Commission, after considering the facts, pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, held that the complainant was a 'consumer ' and the Appellant Bank was deficient in service as no efforts were made by it to return the undelivered documents to the Respondent by a messenger or by hand. State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant Bank to pay a lump -sum compensation of Rs.50,000/ - including costs of litigation to the Respondent. Appellant Bank was also directed to return all the hundis in its possession to the Respondent within a month. State Commission in its order held as under : -

(3.) APPELLANT , being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. We have heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant at some length. Respondent is not present despite service. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant Bank contends that neither the Respondent had any account with the Appellant nor there was any contract between the parties nor any consideration was paid towards the services rendered; that there was no relationship of banker and customer with the Respondent and the collection of documents was undertaken by the Appellant as a measure of ancillary services rendered by it in the capacity of the agent of the Respondent. That the Appellant returned the documents to the Respondent through Value Payable Post (VPL) which were received back with the postal remarks "refused ". That since the documents were received back with the postal remarks "refused ", there was no deficiency on the part of the Appellant in rendering the service. That the documents were returned in the year 1997 to the Respondent whereas the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years provided u/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, i.e. in the year 2000 and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as time -barred; that there was no territorial jurisdiction for the State Commission, Delhi to entertain and decide the complaint as no part of cause of action arose in Delhi; that the services of the Appellant bank were availed of by the Respondent for commercial purpose which is excluded within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the Respondent has failed to prove that the efforts were made by it to collect the unpaid documents but the Appellant Bank had refused to deliver the same.