Challenge in these Revision Petitions filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party in the Complaint u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) is to the orders dated 27.10.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos. 820 and 821 of 2013. By the impugned orders, the State Commission while affirming the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajahmundry (for short, “the District Forum”), had dismissed the Appeals filed by the Petitioner. 

2. Since, the facts and the question of law involved in these Revision Petitions are almost identical, we dispose of both the Revision Petitions with this Common Order.  However, for the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from Revision Petition No. 449 of 2015. 

3. The facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant, M/s. Dhana Laxmi Textile Industries was having its Manufacturing Unit at Rajahmundry for printing of Cotton Sarees, Cloth Banners, Election Materials etc. The Complainant was also maintaining a current Bank Account No. ODCC 23 with the Petitioner, Canara Bank (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Petitioner Bank”) which was later on changed to Account No. 24572610023. One, M/s. Luxmi Traders Dehari, Onsone, State of Bihar placed an order upon the Complainant for supply of Cotton Sarees and requested the Complainant to send the Sarees through Bank and they would release the Sarees after paying the amount to the Bank.  On 16.12.2008, Complainant booked 8 bundles of Cotton Sarees through M/s VRL Logistics Ltd. Under the Lorry Receipt (LR) No. 240150526 under Credit Bill No. 10/63 for ₹1,49,520/-.  On 24.12.2008, the Complainant handed over the L.R. No. 240150526 of M/s. VRL Logistics Ltd. along with Credit Bill and Covering Letter to the Petitioner Canara Bank for collection of an amount of ₹1,49,520/- from the Bank of India Dehari Onsone Branch, Rowthas District, State of Bhiar. 

04. The Complainant and his Agent often went to the Petitioner Bank to enquire from them about Credit of amount of ₹1,49,520/- to their Current Account. The Petitioner Bank informed them that they sent the L.R. and the Credit Bill to the Bank of India, Dehari Onsone Branch by Registered Post but they have not received any information from the Bank of India so far. On enquiries, Complainant came to know that the goods were delivered on 03.01.2009 to M/s. Laxmi Traders by M/s. VRL Logístics after receiving amount from them in which the Bank Manager of the Bank of India had put his signatures. However, the amount of ₹1,49,520/- was not credited in Complainants’ Current Account.  It is averred that the Petitioner Bank has failed to discharge its onus to collect the amount from the Bank of India against the LR and Credit Bill. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum. 

 

05. After hearing both the parties and going through the material and evidence available on record, the District Forum allowed the Complaint by observing as under:-

 

“ It is further observed that the 8 bundles sent from Rajahmundry was delivered to M/s Lakshmi Traders on 3.1.2009 vide delivery Cash Receipt No. P8324 of V.R.L. Logistics Limited under Ex. A6 and on the reverse of the same, the signature and stamp of the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Dehari Onsone Branch is visible and further, the signature of the partner of Lakshmi Traders with stamp was also there reflecting delivery of the said bundles. We observed that the opposite party addressed letter to the Department of posts on 17.02.2009 with regard to disposal of three registered letter and received information that the registered letter under Receipt No.2925 dated. 23.12.2008 pertaining to this complaint addressed to the Bank of India, Dehari Onsone Branch, Bihar and the same was delivered on 1.1.2009 as per Ex.B1 & B2 document from the Postal Authorities to the opposite party. The opposite party contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as they have sent L.R.s. and bills through registered post as per the instructions in Ex.A4 covering letter by the complainant to the Bank of India, Dehari Onsone Branch and further contended that V.R.L. Logistics and M/s. Laxmi Traders should also be made parties in this complaint.

 

But, the opposite party is a banker of the complainant and was entrusted with the responsibly of collection of amount on credit bills through the Bank of India, Dehari Onsonce Branch. It is evident from the available record that the 8 bundles sent by the complainant to one Laxmi Traders was delivered on the L.Rs. furnished by the Laxmi Traders and this is possible only on payment of Rs.1,49,520/- to the Bank of India, Branch with whom the L.Rs were lodged sent by the opposite party bank herein. The said amount of Rs.1,49,520/- was not credited to the account of the complainant and the opposite party bank is solely responsible for collection of the said amount from the Bank of India, Dehari Onsone Branch. We further observed that the opposite party filed only one postal receipt addressed to State Bank of India, Raxaul, Bihar in both the cases filed by the Complainant (i.e. CC 111/10 and CC 1/11). So, there is every kind of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as they have not discharged their function being the banker of the Complainant. Further, the V.R.L. Logistics and the said M/s Laxmi Traders has not contributed to the present dispute in any manner and so, the collection of credit bill amount solely depended upon the opposite party bank. It is further observed that there is no evidence that the opposite party Canara Bank contacted the Bank of India authorities in this regard and enquired the reason for non-credit of the collected bill amount by their Dehari Onsone Branch. So, the opposite party bank failed to play its role in rendering service to its valuable customer and it is evident that the bank has not acted promptly to the grievance of the customer and solely liable.

 

With the discussion held above, we are in the considered opinion that the opposite party bank is liable to pay the credit bill amount of Rs.1,49,520/-  due to the complainant in this transition with simple interest. However, the complainant is not entitled for any damages for mental agony and loss asked for in the Complaint.

 

In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party bank to pay Rs.1,49,520/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 16.12.2010 till realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this complaint.” 

 

06. Dis-satisfied with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed First Appeal No. 820 of 2013 before the State Commission. 

07. The State Commission, after re-appreciation of the facts and the material available before it, dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the finding returned by the District Forum. It was held as under:-

“ Apparently, the complainant/respondent herein who is a manufacturer having a Current Account with the Opposite party bank and he booked eight bundles of cotton sarees through VRL Logistics Ltd., under LR No. 240150526 on 17.12.2008 for an amount of Rs.1,49,520/-. It is specific case of the complainant that the Opposite Party bank at Rowthas District in the State of Bihar was to honour the said LR and credit the bill amount to the complainant’s account. Without collecting the said amount from the Bank of India as per the terms Ex. A4 which was marked on behalf of complainant, the Branch Manager of Canara Bank at Rawthas District in the State of Bihar had endorsed with regard to collection but it is silent as to whether he received the said amount or not. When, once, it is specifically directed by the complainant not to honour said LRs without receipt of said amount and when the same was done contrary to the said direction, in our considered view, it is only the bank i.e., appellant bank and its counterpart at Bihar alone shall be held responsible.  In those circumstances, we are of the considered view that apparently there is deficiency of service in so far as delivery of said consignment in faovour of Laxmi Traders without accepting the said amount and in those circumstances the said loss shall be compensated only by the Opposite Party.”

 

In similar set of circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd reported in 2009 (1) CPJ 16 (SC) upholding the order of the National Commission observed:-

 

“ We are of the opinion that the view taken by the National Commission cannot be faulted with and we are in complete agreement with the National Commission that there was a deficiency in service by the Citibank N.A., New York and consequently by the State Bank of Mysore also. Therefore, compensation has been adequately awarded for deficiency in service against both the Bank and it would be open for the State Bank of Mysore to recover the said compensation from the Citibank, N.A. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order”

 

In those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Dist. Forum was justified in fixing up the liability on the Opposite party i.e, the appellant herein. We find no reason to disagree with the finding of the District Forum.”

 

08. Hence, the Petitioner Bank is before us by filing the present Revision Petitions. 

09. Heard the Learned Counsels for the Parties at some length and also perused the material available on record. 

10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Bank vehemently submitted that the Petitioner Bank was acting as an agent only in the matter of collection of the Bill of Credit and L.R. Upon receiving the Bill and LR from the Complainant, the Petitioner Bank promptly sent the same for collection to the Bank of India, Dehari Onsone Branch by Registered Post and the same was duty received by Bank of India on 13.01.2009 as confirmed by the Postal Authorities. However, the Bank of India has failed to collect the proceed of the LR. Since the drawee Bank did not make any payment to the Petitioner Bank, the Petitioner Bank was unable to credit any amount in the account of the Complainant towards the said Bill of Credit and LR.  It is further argued by him that the State Commission erred in placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd." 2009 (1) CPJ 16. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

11. As against this, Learned Counsel for the Complainant supported the well-reasoned orders passed by the Fora below based upon the correct appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties. 

12. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered view that the Revision Petitions filed by the Petitioner Bank are wholly devoid of any merit. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Complainant was having a current account with the Petitioner Bank. On 14.12.2008, the Complainant was placed an order of supply of Cotton Sarees by the M/s. Luxmi Traders Dehari, Onsone, State of Bihar. Accordingly, the Complainant booked 8 bundles of Cotton Sareess through VRL Logistic Limited under LR No. 240150526 under Bill No. 10/63 of ₹1,49,520/-.  The Complainant handed over the LR and Credit Bill to the Petitioner Bank with a covering letter dated 17.12.2008 wherein a request was made to the Petitioner Bank to collect the payment of invoice amount and credit the same in their account.  The Bank was also requested to deduct its commission charges. The said LR and Bill were sent to the Bank of India by the Petitioner Bank on the instruction of the Complainant. The VRL Logistic Ltd. delivered the consignment of Cotton Sarees to M/s. Luxmi Traders on 03.01.2009 after receiving the LR which was bearing the Bank Seal and signature of the Bank Manager of the Bank of India. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the goods were released to M/s. Luxmi Traders only on receiving of the amount of ₹1,49,520/-. There is a concurrent finding of the facts returned by the Fora below that no efforts were made by the Petitioner Bank to enquire from the Bank of India about the non-receipt of the proceeds of LR. In our view the State Commission has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Citi Bank N.A. (Supra) wherein it was held that under the similar circumstances, the Citi Bank was deficient in service. We fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Fora below after due appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties that the Petitioner Bank was deficient in service in not collecting the proceeds of the LR from the Bank of India. 

13. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Orders passed by the Fora Below in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders.  The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

 

14. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. - (2022) 9 SCC 31  while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269  that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-

“ At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

 

15. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-noted Judgments, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the Fora below in Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Act.    Consequently, the present Revision Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.