Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 09-12-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in C.C. No. 54/2013.

In short, case of the Complainant is that she opened an account with the OP at its Kota (Rajasthan) showroom under the Golden Harvest Scheme floated by the OP with a monthly deposit of Rs. 10,000/-.  In the month of June, 2012, she transferred the said account to the Durgapur branch of the OP and deposited payment slips of 8 months and pass book at the said branch for the purpose of purchasing a bangle of gold worth Rs. 81,300/- (approx.) and also made cash payment for a sum of Rs. 1,300/- (approx.) to make up the shortfall. However, while she was purchasing the ornament, she got arrested from the showroom of the OP, thanks to a conspiracy hatched by one Preetam Singh.  Allegedly, the Complainant was confined at the said showroom from 1 o’clock to 4.45 p.m. without any rhyme or reason.  Although the Showroom Manager of Durgapur branch of the OP and Kota Police initially stated that the concerned bangle was seized, however, in the FRT, there was no mention of it.  The Complainant sent repeated mails to the OP enquiring about the concerned bangle but, the OP failed to give any satisfactory explanation to her query.  Hence, the complaint.

On the other hand, by filing WV, it is stated by the OP that the Complainant came to purchase the ornament from its showroom and after making due payment, she took delivery of the ornament and left the showroom.  The OP feigned ignorance about the alleged arrest of the Complainant. 

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record.

The dispute primarily revolves over alleged non-delivery of the concerned bangle to the Respondent.  On one hand, it is claimed by the Appellant that the Respondent left its showroom after purchasing the bangle and on the other, it is alleged by the Respondent that the Appellant kept the same with it.

Before we deal with the issue, we would like to make it clear here that proceedings drawn under different Sections of the IPC have got no bearing in the present dispute given that the same arose over completely different cause of action.

Admittedly, the Respondent invested money under the Golden Harvest Scheme of the Appellant and paid the cost of gold bangle amounting to Rs. 81,378/- on 30-06-2012.  It is though claimed by the Appellant in its WV that after purchasing the bangle, the Respondent left the showroom, the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo militates against such claim of the Appellant.  The said Memo of Arrest in unequivocal terms states that the Respondent was arrested from the showroom of the Appellant.

In such a scenario, had the bangle been indeed handed over to the Respondent, the Kota (Rajasthan) Police would invariably mention it in the seizure list in presence of witnesses.  However, nothing of that sort is forthcoming before us.

Another intriguing factor being pointed out by the Ld. District Forum is worth consideration.  The concerned Tax Invoice was generated at  02.48 p.m. and according to the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo dated 30-06-2012, the Respondent was arrested from the showroom of the Appellant at 04.45 p.m. No doubt, it is quite unusual for a human being to spend so much time in a showroom, particularly after purchasing such a valuable ornament.  The Ld. District Forum, thus, reasonably refused to believe the contention of the Respondent as a gospel truth.

Another important factor bears mentioning here is that although the Tax Invoice bears the signature of the Respondent, that cannot be taken as a definite proof of receipt of the ornament in question by the Respondent  given that nowhere in the said Tax Invoice, the Respondent made any such endorsement to the effect that she did receive delivery of the bangle in question from the Appellant.

Above all, given that the Respondent was arrested from the showroom of the Appellant, there was no scope for her to conceal the same or pass it over to someone else.  In such a scenario, the entire burden of proving delivery of the bangle in question to the Respondent fallen upon the Appellant, which it miserably failed to discharge. 

Accordingly, the Appellant cannot escape its liability to make good the loss suffered by the Respondent.  The impugned order, seen against this backdrop, appears to be perfectly in order and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the same in any manner whatsoever.

Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.