VINOD TEXTILES vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER

BEING dissatisfied with the order dt : 14.3.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 5/89, the complainant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" hereinafter). The complaint was filed before the District Forum, Jaipur on 7.1.89. The complainant-appellant handed over bill No. 785 for a sum of Rs. 12,451/- alongwith G.R. No. 170003159 dated April 9,1988 to opposite party No. 1-respondent No. 1 with the instructions that the above documents be delivered against payment of Rs. 12,451/- to M/s Bihar Fancy Cloth Store, Natwar Bazar, Post Office Vikramganj, District Rohtak, Bihar. The complainant-appellant has alleged that he is the consumer of the opposite parties (Bank) and the Bank recovers its charges/Commission against the service rendered in receiving the documents from the complainant and delivering the same to the named person against payment. It has been alleged that the opposite parties (Bank) failed to discharge its duties and obligations towards the complainant (customer) by rendering proper service as per instructions. The Bank did not return the documents. It did not pay the amount. On account of these two deficiencies, the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 12,451/- and also interest on it @ 18% per annum. The complainant approached the Bank from time to time and vide letter dt : 5.1.89. The Bank informed the complainant that the documents have been lost and that there is no further lien on the said G.R. According to the complainant the Bank failed to discharge the obligations. It did not render proper service to him. It has been prayed that the Bank may be directed to pay Rs. 12,451/- alongwith the interest @ 18% per annum from 9.4.1988 until the date of payment and that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- may be awarded as damages. Costs have also been claimed. The Bank filed its version of the case contesting the complaint. It was submitted that the two documents mentioned hereinabove which according to the complainant are documents of title were received on 11.4.1988. The Bank sent them for collection. They were sent on the risk and responsibility of the complainant, through post. It was stated that the Bank does not know anything about the delivery of the documents. It was pleaded in para 4 of the version of the case that until the date of the filing of the version of the case no reply has been received and that the Dy. Superintendent, Post Office, Jaipur City, Jaipur informed that after such a long time in accordance with Post Office Guide Part-I Clause 18 the matter has been closed. On 11.1.1989 the letter was written to the Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur. Para 4 of the version of the case discloses the defence.

PARTIES did not produce any evidence before the District Forum. There is mention in the ordersheet dated 19.10.1989 that Counsel for the opposite parties has filed affidavit but no such affidavit is on record. After hearing the arguments, the District Forum held that the complaint was defective and no relief can be granted to the complainant. In view of this, it dismissed, the complaint. The principal reason which prevailed with the District Forum is in the following words : In other words according to the District Forum in the absence of the Transport Company, Natwar Fancy Store and Post Office, a question mark is put on the complaint. Against the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant has filed this appeal as aforesaid.

We have heard Mr. G.C. Garg, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Yashpal Garg Advocate, for the respondents and carefully examined the order under appeal in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also examined the record. A perusal of the complaint shows that the case of the complainant is that it has suffered loss on account of the negligence of the opposite parties (Bank). The District Forum made an erroneous approach to the case. In the face of the averments that were made in the complaint, the documents filed with it and the version of the case, the District Forum was required to direct its attention to the following questions : 1. Whether the complainant has hired the services of the Bank for consideration? 2. Whether on the facts pleaded and proved there was any deficiency in rendering service by the Bank to the complainant? and 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to any relief/reliefs envisaged by Section 14(1) of the Act?

AFTER adjudicating the aforesaid three questions it should have disposed of the complaint according to law but instead that it failed to determine the aforesaid three material questions which were necessary for the disposal of the complaint. According to it the complaint was defective for not joining Transport Company, Natwar Fancy Store and Post Office. If the services rendered by the Bank were deficient, the reliefs could be granted to the complainant in their absence also under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. They are not necessary parties to the complaint. In view of this conclusion, we are left with no alternative but to set aside the order dt : 14.3.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur. The case is sent back to it with a direction to decide the complaint afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. If any of the parties or the parties make a request to the District Forum for adducing evidence, it will be open to the District Forum to record it The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order dt : 14.3.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 5/89 is set aside and the case is sent back for decision afresh of the complaint in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed.