THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JUNE, 2024

APPEAL NO.671/2011

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Maunath Bhanjan Branch,                      ...Appellant/s

Maunath Bhanjan District,

Uttar Pradesh States – duly

Represented by its Manager,

(By Sri.A.Ravishankar, Advocate)

-Versus-

1.      Sri.Sunil

S/o Gangadhara Sa Megharaj

Aged about 36 years,

Occ: Business,

R/o Bhagyanagar village,

Koppal Taluk and District

                                 ...Respondent/s

2.      The Manager

          State Bank of Hyderabad,

          Koppal Branch,

          Koppal – 583 231

(R-1 by Sri.Prakash M.Patil, Advocate)

(R-2 by Sri.S.K.M.Shetty, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Opposite Party No.4 in complaint No.20/2010 preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Koppal which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,43,900/- with interest @7.5% per annum and also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- compensation and Rs.1,000/- litigation expenses and submits that the complainant alleged that he sent one consignment on 11-7-2009 to M/s.Poonam Enterprises to Uttar Pradesh containing textile amounting to Rs.1,43,900/- along with the dress, he sent way-bill bearing No.504779 through the 1^st Opposite Party with a condition precedent the recipient shall pay the above said amount to this appellant and after payment he has to take a delivery of the said consignment (Hundi). The transaction was successful and consignment was received by the consignee after payment of the said amount, but this appellant had not paid the amount of Rs.1,43,900/- inspite of delivery and payment made. Hence alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.

2. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount along with interest and compensation as stated above. In fact the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law, there is no any consumer and service provider relationship between this complainant and Opposite Party when the complainant sought for payment of the said amount they have clarified that no way-bill or any envelopes containing bills/hundi for received by this appellant and also suggested that the company is a fake company and they have instructed the complainant by stating the amount was not paid to this appellant, but the complainant ignored the said facts and filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission without considering the said facts had allowed the complaint; they are not liable to pay any amount as directed by the District Commission. There is no any deficiency in service nor relationship of consumer and servicer provider. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.  

3. Heard from both sides.

4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal along with other documents. The complainant had sent a consignment on 11-7-2009 with a way-bill directing the recipient to pay an amount of Rs.1,43,900/- in the appellant bank. Subsequently the complainant received information that consignment was received by the recipient and amount was paid to this appellant, but this appellant had not paid the amount, hence alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint. We are of the opinion that the entire transaction is not fall within the definition of consumer dispute itself. The transaction itself is a commercial transaction. Further the complainant is no way a customer/consumer to this appellant as he has only given a way-bill for payment of the receipt of the consignment. Mere sending a way-bill will not create a relationship of consumer and service provider. There is no consumer dispute at all arose in the complaint. The District Commission not appreciated the said facts and allowed the complaint. In fact the District Commission at the threshold should have been rejected the complaint, instead of that the District Commission taken up a trial and allowed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission bad in law. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from this appellant as there is no transaction took place between them. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside. As such the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The Appeal is allowed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Koppal in CC.No.20/2010 dated 30.9.2010 is hereby set-aside.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member