Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Appellant remaining absent in spite of notice published on Notice Board of this Commission, Bar and on Internet. By way of abundant precaution separate notice by post is also sent intimating date of hearing, but the same returned unserved with postal endorsement “Addressee is not found”. It is for the appellant to give correct or changed address. Under the circumstances, we proceed further to examine the merit of the case. Mr.S. Hussain, Advocate present for respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2&3 are absent. Heard.
2. This is an appeal filed by org. complainant being not satisfied with the relief granted by the Forum in his favour. We find, it is the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of Bank of India to deliver the goods sent through them without making collection of money and remitting the same to the complainant. Initially, papers were forwarded and sent to Bank of India through Canara Bank and therefore, Manager of Canara Bank was made as one of the party. No relief has been granted in favour of complainant against the Canara Bank. Forum allowed the complaint in favour of complainant and granted relief in toto in terms of prayer clause 18(a) i.e. compensated value of the lost goods assessed at `36,879/- payable by opponent/Manager, Bank of India, one at Head Office at Mumbai and another at Tilakaitganj Branch, Barabanki, U.P. It appears from the appeal memo that the grievance of the appellant/complainant is that interest of `10,800/- is not awarded and therefore, appeal is filed and further that the Manager, Canara Bank was also not held jointly and severally responsible along with other opponents.
3. As far as interest part is concerned, the Forum was already granted interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. Therefore, that grievance does not survive. As far as liability to be fastened on Manager, Canara Bank/org. opponent No.3 who is respondent No.1 in this appeal is concerned, from the averments made in the complaint itself, it could be seen that the complainant himself alleged that deficiency in service is on the part of officials of the Bank of India and under the circumstances, what has been observed by the Forum that once papers submitted and forwarded by the Branch official of the Canara Bank to the Bank of India Branch, their responsibility ends and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. This reasoning cannot be faulted with. Other aspect is that if at all there is deficiency in service on the part of Canara Bank, it would be by the Bank and not by one of its officials, namely, Manager of particular Bank could be a service provider. Complaint is not filed against the Canara Bank. Official of the Bank and the Bank are separate and distinct jurisdic person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For this reason also if no relief is granted against opponent No.3-Manager of Canara Bank, it cannot be faulted with.
4. For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 5th January 2012.
