PREM CHAND BAHRI vs ANDHRA BANK

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant entrusted the goods receipt Hundi for a sum of Rs. 97,645.15 p. drawn on M/s. Somatico Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., C-469, M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Pawne, Nai Mumbai (hereinafter called the ''Company'') to the respondent Andhra Bank through its Manager, Vashi Branch, Sector 17, Vashi, Nai Mumbai (hereinafter called the ''Bank'') for delivering the documents to the said Company against payment of Rs. 97,645.15 p. On receipt of the money, the same was to be remitted to the complainant at Jalandhar City. A further direction was made to the Bank that in case the documents are not retired by the Company, the documents then be sent immediately/positively after 35 days i.e. on 20.12.1997 because the goods sent by G.R. were medicines which were to be consumed within a specific period. Respondent Bank failed to remit the money or send the documents back within stipulated period of 35 days. It is then averred in the complaint that several complaints were made to the respondent Bank and their Head Office but they did not bother. Finally, when notices were sent, they informed the complainant that necessary enquiry is being made. Finally, documents were sent back on 4.6.1998 at the risk and responsibility of the Company and the said Company was requested to settle the matter as the Bank had received notice from the Counsel of the appellant. On receipt of documents, the goods were not recalled as they had become unusable due to lapse of time and the cause of calling the goods back would have been a total loss. For this deficiency and negligence on the part of the Bank i.e. not returning the documents back to the complainant within a stipulated period, a prayer was made before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'') to give direction to the respondent Bank to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- along with interest @ 18% and further interest @ 14% along with costs of the complaint.

FOR the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party i.e. the Bank in not sending the documents within 35 days as referred to above, the District FORum, Jalandhar, granted to the complainant compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the complaint. The other claim of the complainant for Rs. 1,30,000/- as damages which included Rs. 97,645.15 p. price of the Hundi was declined by holding that the damages claimed are too remote as neither the name of the medicines have been disclosed nor the dates of expiry have been disclosed. It was also held by the District FORum that Bank through whom the documents were negotiated could not be held responsible for any damages as the Bank had accepted only the documents for negotiations. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the complainant had entrusted the goods receipt Hundi for a sum of Rs. 97,645.15 p. drawn on M/s. Somatico Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Nai Mumbai, to the opposite party for delivering these documents to the said party against payment of Rs. 97,645.15 p. and on receipt of money the same was to be remitted to the complainant at Jalandhar and a direction was made to the respondent that in case the documents were not retired by the said Company, the documents be returned positively after 35 days as the goods sent by G.R. were medicines which were to be consumed in a specific period. The opposite party failed to remit the money or send the documents within the stipulated period. Thus, the Bank was negligent and deficient in providing due service to the complainant.

THIS argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is without any force. The opposite party/Bank through whom the documents were negotiated cannot be held responsible for the damages, if any, caused to the complainant. The Bank had accepted the documents for negotiations only. Documents were not retired by the Company as the Company had not taken the delivery of the consignment which had resulted in loss to the complainant. The Company was not even impleaded as a party before the District Forum. Respondent Bank cannot be held liable for the omissions and commission of the Company. Even otherwise, it is not established on the record as to how much loss has occurred to the complainant due to the date of expiry of the medicines which according to the complainant were sent through the above said consignment. It is not proved on record as to what was the date of expiry of the medicines. No date of expiry has either been mentioned in the complaint or in the affidavit filed by the complainant to support his complaint before the District Forum.

THOUGH the complainant/appellant was given an opportunity of producing additional evidence before the appellate Commission, still he did not produce the original copy of the bill which could have indicated about the date of the expiry of the medicines, if at all the medicines were subject to expiry after some date. Complainant did not bother to made any effort to secure the consignment containing medicines. If he was serious about the expiry of the medicines, he could immediately contact the concerned person in whose possession the consignment was. He could secure the delivery of the medicines before the date of expiry, if he was in the knowledge that medicines were going to expire after a particular date. He did not even ask the transporter Company to re-book the consignment containing medicines in order to save the medicines from being expired. He did not make even a remote effect to secure the goods/medicines before the date of expiry. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited two judgments on the point : one 1997 (2) CON.LT 673, M/s. S.C. Import Export & Anr. v. Bank of India & Anr., and 1999 (1) CPC 388, Nirmal Khadi Gram Udyog Samiti, Mangalpur v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors., in order to substantiate his arguments.

M/s. S.C. Import Export''s case (supra), is not relevant to the facts of the case in hand. In that case, the complainants had exported certain garments to M/s. Shiwalaya Trading Corporation, Sherpur, Byepass Road, Ludhiana, who had opened irrevokable letter of credit issued by the opposite party - Bank of India. Complainants exported the articles against the said letter of credit and handed over the documents to the Bank of California (U.S.A.) for negotiating the same. Bank of California i.e. the negotiating Bank sent the documents to the collecting Bank i.e. Bank of India for their approval. These documents were retained by the opposite party. Resultantly, the negotiating Bank did not make the payment to the complainants of the value of goods. Ultimately the documents were retained by the opposite party and complainants had to pay some amount being service charges to the collecting Bank. It was due to this that the complainants had alleged deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite party. In the case in hand, the Company did not take any required action on their part. The Bank had accepted only the documents for negotiations. If the party had not retired those documents and had not taken delivery of the consignment which resulted into some loss to the complainant, the Bank was not liable to pay the same to the complainant. Nirmal Khadi Gram Udyog Samiti''s case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, the other party had admitted the factual position as pleaded. Moreover, the facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of the case in hand. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. The appellant/complainant, however, may approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Authority, if so advised. Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.