Complainant through S. S. Bhalerao & Co.

Opponent No. 1 through Lrd. Adv. Sanjay Gaikwad

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

                                               J U D G M E N T

    13/06/2014                                                                 

          This complaint is filed by the consumer against the service provider for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant is a businessman dealing in the business of selling sarees at Raviwar Peth, Pune – 2.  The opponent no.1 is the Co-operative bank, opponent no. 2 is State Bank of India and the opponent no. 3 is the purchaser of the article from the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that he is running business of selling sarees.  He had account in the branch office of the opponent no. 1.  He is doing transactions through the opponent no. 1 for several years.  In the month of December 2009, he has availed service of opponent no.1 for sending articles through bank by paying certain charges.  The opponent no. 3 had placed order of supplying of sarees worth of Rs.1,73,240/-.  The said goods were sent through transport to the opponent no. 3 by invoice dated 26/12/2009.  The said invoice and lorry receipt were handed over to the opponent no. 2 for the purpose of recovery of the price of the goods.  The opponent no. 1 had sent invoice along with lorry receipt to its banker i.e. State Bank of India, who is the opponent no. 2 and advised for recovery of the said amount.  It is the case of the complainant that the opponent no. 3 had received stock of sarees.  However, the opponent no. 1 did not pay price of the articles.  As the opponent no. 1 did not recover amount payable to the complainant, that amounts to deficiency in service.  It was the duty of the opponent no.1 to recover the said amount from the opponent no. 2 to whom the invoice and lorry receipt were sent.  The complainant had sustained loss due to deficiency in service of the opponents.  He has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,73,240/- i.e. price of the goods and interest on the said amount @ 18%.

2]      The opponent no. 1 resisted the complaint by filing written version.  It has denied the contents of the complaint in toto.  It is the case of the opponent no. 1 that even though it had sent invoice and lorry receipt to the opponent no. 2, the same had not made payment of the bill, which was recovered from the opponent no. 3.  Hence, the opponent no. 1 could not pay the said bill to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on its part and it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS    :-

4]      The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had handed over the invoice and the bill, which was sent to the opponent no. 3 worth of Rs.1,73,240/-.  It was agreed by the opponent no. 1 to recover the said bill from the opponent no. 3 through the opponent no. 2 and after recovery of the same, the said amount was to be reimbursed to the complainant.  According to the opponent no. 1, even though the invoice and the lorry receipt were sent to the opponent no. 2 i.e. State Bank of India, the same had handed over the bill and lorry receipt to the opponent no. 3, who had received stock of sarees.  But the State Bank of India did not pay amount of the bills to the opponent no. 1; hence it could not pay the same to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent no. 1.  It is significant to note that, even though the opponent no. 3 had received stock of sarees, the complainant has not sought any relief either from the opponent no. 2 or from the opponent no. 3.   It is significant to note that the opponent no. 1 had not produced any record about the transaction between itself and the opponent no. 2.  It has not produced any correspondence between them.  There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opponent no. 2.  Hence he need not seek any relief from the opponent no. 2.  Even though, the opponent no. 3 had received stock of sarees, he could not have received the same unless and until he paid price of the bill to the opponent no. 2.  As the relation between the complainant and the opponent no. 1 is as ‘consumer’ and the ‘service provider’, it alone is responsible to compensate the loss of the complainant.  The learned Advocate for the opponent no. 1 has placed reliance upon Ruling Revision Pettion no. 842/2007 between “Shree Khursheed Ahmed V/S Indian Overseas Bank”.  It reveals from the facts of the said ruling that the said ruling was as regards the mail transfer advice.  The said is not the case in the present proceeding.  Hence, the said ruling is not applicable to the present proceeding.  In the light of above discussion, the opponent no. 1 has caused deficiency in service. 

5]      There is no agreement between the parties, as regards payment of interest.  However, the complainant is entitled for compensation for deficiency in service.  In the result this Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.

                                      O R D E R

1. The complaint is partly allowed against opponent no. 1.

1. It is hereby declared that the opponent no. 1 has caused deficiency in service by not making payment of the bill to the complainant.

1. The opponent no. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,73,240/- (Rs. One Lac Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only) to the complainant  within six weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

1. The opponent no. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental and physical and physical sufferings and amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) towards costs of the proceeding within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

1. Complaint stands dismissed against the opponent no. 2 and 3.

6.       Copies of this order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

7.       Parties are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.