IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                CASE No.  CC/02/2001.

 Date of Filing (Original):                                   Date of Disposal:

         02.01.2001                                                        07.09.2022

Complainant: Satish Sarboday Bharati

                        Secretary, Sri. P.S. Chowdhury

                        137, B.B. Sen Road, PO-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad

-Vs-

Opposite Party:   1. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda

                                  Berhampore Branch

                                  PO&PS-Berhampore

                                  Dist.-Murshidabad

                              2. Branch Manager, Bank of India

                                  Dehri-on-Son Branch,

                     Cinema Road, PO-Rohtas

                3. Superintendent of Post Office,

                    Berhampore Post Office.

                             4. Manager, A.B.C. Transport,

                    Nc 10 Sandalpur Road, Near Kumar Gupti

                    PO- Mahendrs Patna

                    Dist-Patna, Pin-800020

                   Patna, Bihar (OP No.4 is added vide Order No. 26 Dt. 04.07.16)

               5. Manager, Bank of Baroda

                 Mohania Branch, PO-Mohania

                Dist-Kaimur, Bihar

                 Pin-221109 (OP No.5 is added vide Order No. 26 Dt. 04.07.16)

   Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

        Sri. Subir Sinha Roy……………………………….Member.                        

                     Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri.Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Satish Sarboday Bharati (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda and Ors. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

           The complainant filed an application u/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 claiming Rs. 1,26,000/- towards credit consideration money and Rs. 73,400/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

             The complainant is a Khadi Institution certified by  K& V.I. Commission ( Govt. of India ). Jyoti Cloth Emporium placed some order before the complainant in connection with supply of Silk Printed Sarees and other descriptions for Rs, 1,26,600/-  through the opposite party Bank of Baroda, Berhampur Branch by ABC transport vide consignment No. WA-66427 dated 29-05-2000.

              As per contract, it is the legal obligation and duty of the opposite party Bank to render service for collecting the entire credit money from the Jyoti Cloth Emporium. It is also the duty of OPs to pay the said consideration money to the Complainant. But the OPs did not take proper action. On several occasions the complainant made reminders to the Ops but in vain. The complainant suffered a huge financial loss. Hence the case.

              OP No.1 Bank of Baroda, Berhampur Branch contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia  that this OP sent the invoce No SSV/I-R/601-603/ 2000-01 dated 22-05-2000 to Bank of Baroda, Mohania Branch on 01-06-2000 under registered post. The invoice was returned on 06-07-2000 form the Bank. Thereafter this OP again sent the invoice and OBC No. 1243 dated 20-07-2000 by registered post under receipt No. 4260 dated 25-07-2000 to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Dehri-on-sone  Branch, Rohtas Bihar as there was no Branch of  Bank of India at Rohtas. But the said Bank clearly stated that they did not receive such OBC. The OP again served a letter dated 14-09-2000 to the post office for verification of the matter. OP further wrote a letter on 09-01-2001 to the Superintendent of Post Office Berhampur, Murshidabad, requesting to confirm the delivery of the registered article to the Bank of India, Dehri-on-sone, Bihar. But the OP did not get any satisfactory reply till date. Then the OP further wrote to the Superintendent of post office, Berhampur, Murshidabad.

             The OP could not know whether the Registered Article  was actually delivered to the Bank or the Consignee Jyoti Cloth Emporium received such invoice or the Consignee received the goods from ABC Transport or the entire goods are lying with the ABC Transport as undelivered.

            This OP has not received any collection of the consignment amount from the Bank of India, Dehri-on-sone Branch, Bihar. The OP tried to get collection of the bilty money through these activities. OP also stated that the complainant had the knowledge fully about the non-delivery of the goods and the Complainant has failed to ask the ABC Transport for returning the articles from Bihar. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP N0.1 Bank of Baroda, Berhampore Branch.

               OP No. 2  Branch Manager, Bank of India, Dehri-on-sone, Bihar also contested the case by way of oral submission that there is no claim of complainant as against the OP No. 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP NO.2

            OP No.3 Superintendent, Berhampore Post Office contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the complainant is to prove the matter and it is stated that the registered letter in question was delivered to the addressee on 29-07-2000 and the said fact has been intimated to the Bank of India, Berhampore Branch by a letter dated 24-01-2002. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3.

Decision with Reasons:

              After hearing the arguments of both sides this commission passed the following final order on 10-10-2012 to the effect :

“ that the CP Case No. 2/2001 is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 with cost of Rs.1,000/- and dismissed on contest against Ops 2 & 3 without cost.

            The OP No. 1 Bank of Baroda, Berhampore Branch is hereby directed to pay Rs. 1,26, 600/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the case to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order.

            If the OP No. 1 violates the said order within the stipulated period, the complainant is at liberty to proceed as per law.

             Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.”

            Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement dated 10-10-2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad, the OP No. 1 The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Berhampore Branch preferred an appeal bearing No. S.C. Case No : FA/ 859/2012. before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.

            The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, disposed of the said appeal with the following observation :

             “ It appears from the facts of the case that the Transporter, “ABC Transport”, and the collecting Bank, i.e., Bank of Baroda, Mohania Branch, Bihar are closely involved in the present proceeding, but they had not been impleaded as parties in the instant case, rendering thereby the proper and effectual adjudication of the case impossible. The presence of these necessary parties was essential to enable the Ld. Forum to adjudicate and settle the controversy in question effectually and completely. Apart from non-joinder of necessary parties, the evidence available on records appears to be insufficient, particularly, in respect of copies of the Consignment Notes, Invoices and OBC of the Bank.

              In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Appeal should be allowed and the same is allowed accordingly. The impugned judgement and order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Ld. District Forum below to adjudicate the case afresh on merits and as per law upon impleading the transporter, i.e., “ABC Transport”, and the collecting Bank, i.e., Bank of Baroda, Mohania Branch, Bihar, as necessary parties and also upon exchange of evidence and counter-evidence between the parties in the case. No order as to costs.”

            In view of the direction of the State Commission, Manager, ABC Transport and Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mohania Branch were  added as OP No. 4 and OP No 5 vided order dated 04-07-2016.

Some facts regarding O.P.No-4, i.e., ABC Transport is required to be mentioned here.

 It is found vide Order No. 33 dated 28-02-17 that S/R in respect of O.P. No.4 , ABC Transport returned with the remark ‘left’. And the complainant was directed to take fresh steps. In spite of several directions of this Commission, the complainant could not take steps in respect of O.P. No. 4. It is found vide Order No. 37 dated 28-06-17, this Commission gave scope to the Complainant for taking steps as last chance in respect of this O.P. No. 4 but in vain.

            It is also found vide Order No. 40 dated 22-08-17 that this commission issued direction for taking fresh steps upon O.P.No. 4 but there is no materials on record that notice was served upon the O.P. No.4.

Some facts regarding O.P.No-5, i.e., Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mohania,  is required to be mentioned here.

O.P.No. 5 , Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mohania appeared in this case but he was in the habit of praying for adjournment for filing w/v and as such  vide Order No. 40 dated 22-08-17 he was directed to file w/ v subject to the payment of cost of Rs.500/- only out of which 50%  towards complainant and rest 50% towards Consumer Legal Aid Fund. In spite of that he did not file w/v. Thereafter vide order No. 43 dated 27-11-17, the O.P. No. 5 was allowed to file W/V with cost of Rs.800/- only in total out of which 50% shall be paid in favour of the complainant and rest 50%  shall be paid towards Consumer Legal Aid Fund.

In spite of that O.P.No. 5 did not file W/V. Such being the position this commission vide Order No. 44 dated 20-12-17 allowed O.P.No. 5 to file W/V subject to the payment of Cost of Rs.1200/- only in total out of which 50% shall be paid towards Complainant and rest 50% shall be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.

             Thereafter, this Commission vide Order No. 45 dated 03-01-18 passed order to the effect that the case shall be heard ex-parte against the O.P. No. 5.

             However, it is found vide order No. 47 dated 16-03-18 that O.P. No. 5 filed W/V.

Next Progress of this Case.

It is found vide order No. 51 dated 18-09-18, that the complainant filed supplementary evidence. It is found vide Order No. 53 dated 15-01-19 that the complainant filed written argument but O.P.No-5 did not file evidence in spite of order and 11-03-19 was fixed for hearing of argument. And since that time the dates are being fixed as hearing of argument.

             It is found vide order No. 60 dated 13-01-20 that argument was heard in part. And thereafter the complainant is being absent on the dates fixed for argument. Lastly vide Order No. 71 dated 25-08-22, the date i.e., 07-09-22 was fixed for hearing of argument.

            Today i.e. 07.09.22 is fixed for hearing of argument. OP No.1 files a written argument today. The record shows that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. It is a case of the year 2001. Such being the position, we are of the view that the instant case is required to be disposed of on merit.

            As per observation of the Ld. State Commission that the Transporter, “ABC Transport”, and the collecting Bank, i.e., Bank of Baroda, Mohania Branch, Bihar are closely involved in the present proceeding, but they had not been impleaded as parties in the instant case, rendering thereby the proper and effectual adjudication of the case impossible. The presence of these necessary parties was essential to enable the Ld. Forum to adjudicate and settle the controversy in question effectually and completely. Apart from non-joinder of necessary parties, the evidence available on records appears to be insufficient, particularly, in respect of copies of the Consignment Notes, Invoices and OBC of the Bank.

            But in the instant case the Complainant has failed to prove service of notice upon the OP No.4 A.B.C Transport. Moreover, evidence available on record appears to be insufficient particularly, in respect of copies of the consignment notes invoices and OBC of the Bank. In this respect, the Complainant has failed to supply the sufficient particulars in respect of copies of the consignment notes invoices and OBC of the Bank.

In view of the matters discussed above, we are of the view that Proper and effectual adjudication of the case is impossible and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 02.01.2001 This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.

              Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the Complaint Case No. CC/02/2001 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OPs but without costs.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in