ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. SHREE MADHURAM INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 7.8.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 15.2.1999 of a Disrict Forum whereby petitioner-bank was directed to pay amount of Rs. 36,750 with interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 19.9.1997.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. The respondent/complainant presented in Kishangarh branch of the petitioner/opposite party bank, three bills dated 14.2.1997, 17.2.1997 and 24.2.1997 along with Goods Receipts for collection of amounts thereof through State Bank of India, Tekua-Tad, Distt. Dewaria (U.P.). Three G.Rs. were issued by Jaipur Golden Transport Company. On amount of three bills not being received, the respondent asked the petitioner bank by the letters dated 9.4.1997 and 21.4.1997 either to make payment or return the G.Rs. On failure of petitioner to do so, the respondent after serving legal notice filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner. Receipt of the three bills along with G.Rs. for the purpose of collection through SBI, Tekua-Tad, was not disputed. It was, however, alleged that the pay-in-slips through which the bills were deposited, filled by the respondent provide:

(3.) It was further alleged that the bills and G.Rs. in question were sent for collection by registered posts to SBI, Tekua-Tad on the dates they were received from the respondent. In response to petitioner's letter dated 14.3.1997 and 3.4.1997, SBI, Tekua-Tad informed the petitioner that they had not received the subject bills/G.Rs. and advised the petitioner to contact the concerned Post Office. It was stated that thereafter the petitioner asked the Kishangarh Postal Authority on 9.4.1997 and on subsequent dates to intimate about the delivery of registered letters sent to SBI, Tekua-Tad and by the letter dated 14.5.1997, the postal authority informed the petitioner that the said bank had refused to accept the letters. However, the postal authority failed to trace out the letters. It was also pleaded that on 14.5.1997 the petitioner sent a letter to Jaipur Golden Transport Co. requesting it not to release the goods against the three G.Rs. By the letter dated 28.7.1997, the transport company informed the petitioner that the goods had been delivered on production of original consignee copies of the G.Rs. Transport company, however, did not furnish the consignee copies of G.Rs. to the petitioner bank. Complaint was alleged to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.