1) In brief consumer disputes is as under – that the Complainant is a proprietor of M/s Harakchand & Company, Opposite Party no.1 & 2 are bank companies incorporated under banking companies Act. Opposite Party No.3 is engaged in the business of courier services and Opposite Party No.4 is a carrier.

2) During the course of business the Complainant received order for supply of textile goods from M/s.Jeet Enterprises from Allahabad. As per aforesaid order he had entrusted with Opposite Party No.4 textile goods for safe carriage thereof from Mumbai to Allahabad in the month of October, 2004. Particulars of the said textile goods are as under –

 

3) It is submitted by the Complainant that aforesaid goods were meant for their up-country customer M/s.Jeet Enterprises of Allahabad. Opposite Party No.4 in token of having received the said consignment issued to the Complainant two consignment notes and agreed to deliver the goods at destination only on production of original consignee copy of consignees. Particulars of the consignment notes are stated as under -

The consignment were addressed to “self” and the Complainant was the consignor as well as the consignee of the aforesaid consignment notes.

4) As per the Complainant the consignment were routed through Allahabad Bank and said consignment were to be handed over to the Complainant’s up-country customer on production of original consignee copies which were sent to Allahabad Bank for negotiation with Complainants up-country customers though Opposite Party No.1.

5) On 13/10/2004 the Complainant had entrusted to Madhur Courier - Opposite Party No.3, one packet containing two original invoices and two consignee copies of Swaroop Carrier - Opposite Party No.4 alongwith two covering letter dated 11/10/2004. As per the Complainant, Opposite Party No.3 delivered to Opposite Party No.1 said packet containing said documents and same has been duly received and acknowledged by Opposite Party No.1under their seal and signature on 15/10/2004. As per the arrangement M/s.Jeet Enterprises were to collect said original document from Opposite Party No.1 after making payment thereof to the Opposite Party No.1 as stated in covering letter.

6) It is submitted that for long time the Complainant did not receive remittances of said documents from the Bank. So he made enquiry with M/s.Jeet Enterprises and was shocked to know that said M/s.Jeet Enterprises has not received any intimation from the bank about the said documents. Then the Complainant made enquiry with Bank and the bank informed that bank had not received any such packet containing said documents from Madhur Courier Service. Thereafter Complainant made enquiry to Madhur Courier Service and he came to know that Madhur Courier Service had delivered the packet containing the said documents to the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 duly acknowledged the same on 15/04/2004 under their seal and signature. The Complainant has produced photo copy of proof of delivery of said packet to the Opposite Party No.1. However, inspite of receipt of the said packet containing documents, Opposite Party No.1 denied the same with fraudulent and dishonest intention. It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 after receiving the said documents, have been misused and on the basis of said documents delivery of the said goods was taken by the third party and therefore, Opposite Party No.1 and its head office-Opposite Party No.2 are liable to reimburse value of the documents to the Complainant. Due to negligence, carelessness and dishonest acts of the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant has suffered loss.

7) The Complainant through his advocate sent notice dated 04/01/2005 followed by another notice dated 17/02/2005 address to the Opposite Party No.1 and recorded aforesaid facts. The Opposite Party No.1 has not replied to the said notice. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

8) The Complainant has prayed to direct Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant sum of Rs.55,046/- and interest on Rs.30,046/- @ 25 % p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of entire amount. The Complainant has also prayed for cost of this proceeding.

9) Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have filed their common written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that complaint is misconceived, groundless and is liable to be dismissed with cost. There is no agreement between Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to provide any service to the Complainant. The Complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. According to the Opposite Parties during the course of enquiry it revealed that the goods were released to Sharada Traders by the Transporter therefore, it was necessary part of the Complainant to join Sharada Traders as a party to this proceeding.

10) It is the say of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 that they have neither any knowledge of alleged consignments nor any consignment notes dated 11/10/2004 as well as bills dated 02/10/2004 were received by them. They have denied the allegations that the packets containing two original invoices, two consignment copies and two covering letters received by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is not aware about any arrangement settled between Complainant and M/s.Jeet Enterprises. It is alleged by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 that documents produced as proof of delivery on 15/10/2004 appears to be forged document because the entry of number of receipt i.e. 23197289 appears to be subsequently added entry. It is contention of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 after enquiry it is revealed that the first mail was not delivered by Opposite Party No.3 prior to 27/11/2004 when Shri. Ram Awadh Singh the employee of the Opposite Party No.3 delivered the second mail containing the letter dated 24/11/2004 of Complainant addressed to M/s.Jeet Enterprises alongwith other documents. According to the Opposite Party due to the fault of the Complainant the foresaid incident took place and therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 had denied allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

11) Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit-in-reply and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending that there is not deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3. Even according to the Complainant, Opposite Party No.3 performed its role/obligation. It is submitted by Opposite Party No.3 that the Complainant had given one packet which was duly delivered to the consignee on 15/10/2004 i.e. to Allahabad Bank - Opposite Party No.1. Allahabad Bank-Opposite Party No.1, in token has put its acknowledgement with seal and signature. After delivery to Allahabad Bank-Opposite Party No.1 contractual obligation comes to an end and therefore, Opposite Party No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. Complainant has unnecessarily joined Opposite Party No.3 as party to this proceeding, therefore, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is liable to be dismissed with cost.

12) Opposite Party No.4 has filed separate written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant. It is contended that the Complainant is not consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to Opposite Party No.4, the consignment were booked by the Opposite Party No.4 by Bhiwandi and delivered to M/s.Sharada Traders on surrendering original consignment copy of the goods consignment notes and payment of freight. Opposite Party No.4 has denied the allegations that the said consignment was for M/s.Jeet Enterprises. Consignment was carried out by Opposite Party No.4 on goods consignment notes no.548818 dated 11/10/2004 and goods consignment notes no.548819 dated 11/10/2004 and the said consignments were duly delivered at the destination to the parties who produced original consignment copy duly endorsed to the parties. Opposite Party No.4 has produced xerox copies of the said goods consignment notes dully endorsed by the concern parties.

Opposite Party No.4 has admitted that the consignment notes were prepared on ‘self’ basis and it was duly endorsed by the Complainants by signing on the back of the goods consignment notes. Opposite Party No.4 was not aware about the documents were negotiated through Allahabad Bank. Opposite Party No.4 has denied allegations made in the complaint contending that Opposite Party No.4 delivered goods to the consignee and hence, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.4.

13) Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant has filed documents as per list of document. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have produced xerox copy of documents alongwith their written statement and affidavit of Mr.Anup Bhattacharya in support of their contention raised in the written statement. The Complainant has filed written argument. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have filed written argument, Opposite Party No.4 has also filed written argument. Heard oral submission of Mr.R.R.Singh, Advocate for the Complainant, Mr.K.R.Lalchandani, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and Mr.S.V.Vora, Advocate for the O.P.No.4.

The Complainant is a proprietor of M/s.Harakchand & Company. It is the case of Complainant that he had received order for supply of textile goods from M/s.Jeet Enterprises from Allahabad and then as per aforesaid order he had entrusted with Opposite Party No.4- Swaroop Carriers, said textile goods for safe carriage thereof from Mumbai to Allahabad. Particulars of Bill and amount of the said textile goods are as stated in complaint para no.2. Opposite Party No.4 in their written statement has admitted the fact the subject consignment was carried out by the Opposite Party No.4 and said consignment was duly delivered at the destination to the party who produced original consignee copy, goods consignment notes duly endorsed by the party. Opposite Party No.4 produced xerox copy of the aforesaid consignment notes alongwith written statement.

It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that the said consignment were routed through Allahabad Bank and the said consignment were to be handed over to their up-country customer on production of original consignee copies. On 13/10/2004 the Complainant had entrusted to Opposite Party No.3 Madhur Courier Service one packet containing two original invoices and two consignee copies of Swaroop Carriers alongwith two covering letters dated 11/10/2004. The packet was addressed to Opposite Party No.1. According to the Complainant, Opposite Party No.3 delivered the said packet to Opposite Party No.1 on 15/10/2004 and Opposite Party No.1 acknowledged receipt of said packet under their seal and signature. The Complainant had produced xerox copy of the courier receipt at Exhibit-‘B’. Opposite Party No.3 in his affidavit-in-reply supported contention of the Complainant submitting that Opposite Party No.3 has performed its role/obligation. It is submitted by Opposite Party No.3 that the Complainant had given one packet which was duly handed over to the consignee on 15/10/2004 i.e. to Allahabad Bank - Opposite Party No.1. Allahabad Bank-Opposite Party No.1, in token has put its acknowledgement with seal and signature. Therefore, according to the Opposite Party No.3 there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.3.

Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have denied the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant has sent one packet containing aforesaid documents. However, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have not given any explanation about their seal and signature appearing on delivery sheet of Opposite Party No.3 – Madhur Courier Services for the aforesaid packet sent for delivery. Receipt number of said packet stated as 23197289. By refereeing to the delivery sheet of Madhur Courier Service at Exhibit-‘C’ Ld.Advocate for the Complainant pointed out that packet bearing number 23197289 was delivered to the Allahabad Bank. From the evidence on record it is clear that from 15/10/2004 the aforesaid packet containing two original invoices, two consignee copies alongwith two covering letters were received by the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

It appears that the consignment was sent to M/s.Jeet Enterprises. The consignment was routed through Allahabad Bank. Allahabad Bank was supposed to hand over original invoice and copy of consignee to M/s.Jeet Enterprises alongwith covering letter inside the said packet. However, Allahabad Bank negligently delivered original invoice and consignee copies to other persons. According to the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 said consignment was received by Sharada Traders. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 had not adduced evidence to support their contention that the consignment was received by Sharada Traders.

Today this complaint is fixed for passing final order. Totay at 11.00 a.m Mr.K.R.Lalchandani, Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 & 2 appeared and produced affidavit of Mr.Sheel Ranjan who is presently posted as Chief Manager of Allahabad Bank, Kalyani devi Branch, Allahabad and xerox copy of one register style as bills received for collection. In the affidavit Mr.Sheel Ranjan, present Chief Manager of Opposite Party No.1 has stated that “The consignment no.23197289 of Madhur Courier was received by branch on 18/10/2004 which contains the L/R No.6-7465287 dated 07/10/2004 for Rs.8,450/- which was payable by M/s.Jeet Enterprises, Allahabad. The Party had retired/paid the bill on 22/01/2005 and proceeds were remitted to Drawer.” He had further stated that “as per the record available the Invoice No.1389 dated 02/10/2004 for Rs.15,169/- and Invoice No.1390 dated 02/10/2004 for Rs.14,877/- was never received by the branch”. In the xerox extract of ‘Bill received for collection’ register produced on record, it is mentioned that from Harakchand & Co., Mumbai, bill dated 07/10/2004 was received and it was for M/s.Jeet Enterprises, an amount stated is Rs.8,450/- further date of payment is stated a 22/01/2005. Whatever stated in the affidavit of Mr.Sheel Ranjan, present Chief Manager of Opposite Party No.1 is inconsistent and contradictory to the averment made in the written statement and written argument of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. In the written statement and written argument of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have clearly denied delivery of packet inquestion by Opposite Party No.3. As discussed above, it reveals from the evidence of record the Complainant had entrusted one packet to Opposite Party No.3- Madhur Courier containing two invoices and two consignee copies of Swaroop Carrier - Opposite Party No.4 alongwith two covering letter dated 11/10/2004. Now Opposite Party No.1 and 4 admitted receipt of said packet from Opposite Party No.4 however, it is contended that it was contained only L/R No.6-7465287 dated 07/10/2004 and it was not containing other invoices. In the written statement Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have taken contention that during the course of enquiry it is revealed that the goods were released to Sharada Traders by the transporter. Nowhere in the written statement or written argument it is mentioned that the documents were handed over to M/s.Jeet Enterprises. There are no allegations about the alleged payments made by Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Therefore, aforesaid inconsistent and contradictory evidence adduced by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 cannot be relied upon. Opposite Party No.1 is Branch office of Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant had availed banking service of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. However, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 failed and neglected to perform their duty and due to the deficiency of service of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 the Complainant has suffered loss. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Hence, we answer point no.1 accordingly.