STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR vs VELAMMAL TEXTILES

OF the 5 opposite parties. The Manager, State Bank of Bikaner against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant.

THE case of the complainant-Company is that on 7.5.1994 they booked a consignment of clothes of the value of Rs. 55,410/- with the 4th respondent carriers to be delivered to the 5th opposite party at Jaipur. THE original Lorry Receipt and the bill were sent through registered post to the 1st opposite party State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for collection. THE postal acknowledgement was not received by the complainant. In this connection, they made complaints to the opposite parties 2 & 3 the post offices. But the complainant was informed that the registered letter sent has been served on the 1st opposite party-Bank. THE complainant wrote to the 1st opposite party on 22.6.1994 to return the documents in case the bill was not honoured by the 5th opposite party. THE 1st opposite party informed the complainant that it has not received the registered letter which is said to have been sent by the complainant. THE complainant came to know that some one had taken delivery of the goods from the 4th opposite party producing the original lorry receipt with false endorsements. Alleging thus complaining deficiency in service of the opposite parties 1 to 5 complaint has been filed for an award making the opposite parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally liable. All the 5 opposite parties contested the matter by filing written versions.

The District Forum held on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence that the registered letter containing the original lorry receipt and invoice sent by the complainant had been received by the 1st opposite party and without collecting the amount it has delivered them to the consignee and this amounts to deficiency in service on their part. As regards the other opposite parties the District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service on their part. In the result, the District Forum passed an award against the 1st opposite party directing it to pay a sum of Rs. 53,910/being the value of the goods as per the invoice, with interest thereon at 15% p.a. from 7.5.1994 till date of payment and also a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

NOW in the appeal it is contended that the decree passed by the District Forum against the 1st opposite party is against the pleadings and the evidence in the case and as such it is not sustainable. It is contended that it is the definite case of the appellant/1st opposite party that there was absolutely no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the complainant and this point has not at all been considered by the District Forum. On a careful consideration it appears to us that there is much force in this contention. On going through the averments in the complaint we are not able to find as to there being any arrangement between the complainant and the 1st opposite party for the complainant to send the original lorry receipt and the invoice to the 1st opposite party. It is simply stated that those documents were sent by post to the 1st opposite party for collection. It is the unequivocal defence of the 1st opposite party that they never received any registered post from the complainant as alleged. Admittedly there was no acknowledgement filed by the complainant for receipt of any registered post by the 1st opposite party. The District Forum has found that the 1st opposite party had received a registered letter sent by the complainant mainly on the basis that Ex. B5 delivery slip maintained in the Post Office of the 3rd opposite party/ Post Master, Head Post Office, Jaipur according to which a registered letter No. 1829 from Erode was one of the 7 registered letters delivered to the 1st opposite party on 10.5.1994. But as stated above the 1st opposite party is definite in their contention that the Bank has not received any registered letter from the complainant. We are not able to agree with the observation of the District Forum that the signatures in Exs. B7and B5 are almost identical There is nothing to establish that there was customer and bankers relationship between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. Excepting stating that the lorry receipt and invoice were sent to the 1st opposite party for collection, nothing else is stated by the complainant. Therefore the contention of the 1st opposite party that there was no privity of contract between the Bank and the complainant has to be accepted. Consequently it follows that there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Considering thus the award passed against the 1st opposite party by the District Forum cannot be upheld as correct. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.