BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Wednesday, 24th April 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 327/ 1996
M/s Janapati Chinna Venkata Ramaiah and sons,
Rep. by its Managing Partner, J.C. Yanada Rao,
7/243-1, Bhagyanagar Colony, Kadapa – 516 002. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager, Corporation Bank, Kadapa.
2. The Manager, Punjab Natiional Bank,
Shahpur – 802162, Bojupur district, Bihar State.
3. Transport Corporation of India,
Near Saradanilayam High School, Kadapa. ….. Respondents.
This complaint remanded from A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and coming on this day for final hearing on 9-4-2015. The complainant called absent and R1 called absent, Sri C.K. Bramhaiah, Advocate for R2 and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The petitioner is a wholesale cloth merchant at Kadapa. On 6-12-1994, a party belongs to Bojpur of Bihar state, by name ‘M/s Rajesh Textiles’, has purchased some cloth material from the petitioner for Rs. 1,32,890/- out of which they have paid an advance of Rs. 2,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 1,30,890/-. The petitioner has dispatched the said goods on 7-12-1994 from Kadapa to Charakund and at the request of the said party, through the R3, vide consignment No. 57602 which is a ‘TOPAY’ L.R. The R1 is the banker of the petitioner. As per instructions of their party, the petitioner has submitted the above L.R., invoice and etc., documents to the R1 to be sent to the R2. The petitioner’s party has to pay the balance amount under invoice i.e. Rs. 1,30,890/- to the R2, and the R2 shall release the said documents with an endorsement the original consignment copy the goods may be delivered to M/s Rajesh Textiles. And in turn the R2 shall transmit the amount paid by the party to the R1, where it will be credited in to the account of the petitioner for these transactions both R1 and R2 shall collect their commission including the postal charges etc.,. At the maximum, these transactions shall complete within a month. But, even after waiting for a considerable period the amount is not credited into the account of the petitioner, in respect of the above said goods. As and when it was requested, the R1 was saying that they have not received the payment from R2, and they were taking up the issue with the R2.
3. But after waiting for nearly 4 months, the petitioner has requested the carrier i.e. the R3 to inform that whether the goods were delivered to the party or not. The R3 has informed on 6-4-1996, that the party has taken delivery of the goods on 3-1-1995 itself, by production the original consignee copy and original “TOPAY” L.R which are now with their Secunderabad Office.
4. Thus it has clear that by 3-1-1995 itself, the party has paid the amount to R2 and got released the documents and has taken delivery of the goods. Then it is not known, why the said amount has got been sent by R2 to the R1. It is also not known that why the R1 has slept over the issue, when the amount under documents is not received at their end. In these circumstances, after waiting for long period, and after losing confidence in R1 words, and after repeated demands, the petitioner has sent a legal notice dt. 13-7-1996 to both the R1 and R2, calling upon them to pay the amount under the invoice with interest to the petitioner and if they fail to do so, the petitioner shall approach a court of law for the recovery of the said amount and also for compensation.
5. It is pertinent to see and it is most unfortunate thing that the R1, has not even cared to give a reply, though they have received the said notice on 15-7-1996. At the outset, it is the burden duty of the R1, that whenever the documents of a customer have been sent to some other bank, to verify, checkup whether the payment for the said documents is receiving within a reasonable time, if the payment is not received, to follow the issue, in order to safeguard the interests of their valuable customer. But, in the instant case, they left the issue unsolved, unanswered since one year and eight months and slept over the issue. Thus, it can be said there is a considerable negligence on the part of R1. Further, since they did not care to even given a proper reply / answer to the legal notice sent by the petitioner, no more example or explanation is require to establish their gross negligence which is most unwanted in the banking system.
6. It is most wonderful thing that the R2 who was kind enough to given a reply through their advocate, has stated that they have not at all received the subject documents from R1, further, they have stated that the petitioner himself is responsible for the entire issue and they have called them as criminals. This is more unfortunate thing that being a nationalized bank and scheduled bank, the R2, instead of a reasoned response, thrown the blame on the petitioner and made unpardonable comments, which defects the object of the Nationalization of the Banks itself.
7. Thus it is clear that though the petitioner has sent the goods on 7-12-1996, till this day, thy have not received the amount for the same and it can easily be presumed that how much inconvenience caused to the petitioner quite apart from direct loss in business, which is more competitive in nature rather than any other business. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation also. Hence, this petitioner for the following reliefs.
8. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to direct the respondents who ever responsible or liable (i) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,890/- being the balance amount under the subject invoice No. 685, dt. 6-12-1994 , with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of their dispatching the goods i.e. 7-12-1994 till the date of payment, (ii) to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation, (iii) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs and pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble forum may be deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
9. Counter filed by 1st respondent that the petition against this respondent is bad, unjust and not maintainable in law. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not expressly submitted herein.
10. This respondent is not aware of the Textile dealings with M/s Rajesh Textiles, Shapur of Bihar State dt. 6-12-1994 and dispatch of goods to the Charakund through R3 etc.,
11. It is true that the petitioner is having bank dealings with this respondent. It is true that the petitioner submitted documents pertaining to invoice etc., to be forwarded to R2 bank for collection at Shapur. The bank procedure stated by the petitioner in sofar realizing monies sent through bank documents etc., is correct.
12. The petitioner wantonly made certain allegations against R1 and R2 banks through their council who deals with bank cases and these respondents, reserve their right to take appropriate steps for making defamatory statement against banking institutions.
13. This respondent at the outset states that the petitioner has been cheated by the alleged fictitious M/s Rajesh Textiles, Shapur, who induced the petitioner’s to part textiles worth of Rs. 1,30,890/- by making part payment of Rs. 2,000/-. This respondent hereby states the entire true facts in regard to the alleged nonpayment of invoice dt. 6-12-1994 sent to fictitious party and submit that the petitioner has to filed criminal case against the alleged fictitious Textile company for cheating, impersonal inducement to part valuable property. Nextly the petitioner has to implead the postal department for their involvement in tendering R.P. cover to a wrong person. The post office authorities are submitting against this respondent categorically state that a group of interstate criminal gang seems to have hatched out a plan to book orders by making part payments and stealthy removed bank documents from R.P. cover, inclusion with postal authorities at Shapur and get it released the goods from R3 office at Chirukund which is 600 K.M away to Shapur consignee M/s Rajesh Textiles. The petitioner after the receipt of lawyer reply from R2 bank ought to have filed criminal complaint as well as Civil suit against M/s Rajesh Textile, Shapur instead of approaching consumer forum. The petitioner is aware of entire steps taken by this respondent and ought to have visited shapur to ascertain the existence of M/s Rajesh Textiles at Shapur. So there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to try the present case in view of criminal acts of cheating etc., the true facts are as follows.
14. This respondent after the receipt of original documents from the petitioner on 7-12-1994, dispatched the said document under a register cover with acknowledgement bearing register No. 273/1994, dt. 8-12-1994 through Kadapa Head Post office to Shapur address furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter this respondent after the receipt of oral complaint from the petitioner, addressed series of letters and telegrams to R2 bank at Shapur, requesting them to report the receipt of OBC No. 273/1994 dt. 8-12-1994. This respondents is herewith filing Photostat copies of R.P. letters addressed to R2 bank dt. 11-1-1995. This respondents send telegrams also on 21-1-1995 to R2 bank about R.P. cover R2 wrote a reply on 19-1995 to this respondent by R.P. stating that they have not received any such R.P.letter in that reply by R2 bank, they have also informed about fictitious letters and telegrams sent by one N.D. Ranga Mani of Kadapa. R2 sent reply for the telegram on 25-1-1995 the said replies Photostat copies of R2 are filed herewith.
15. This respondent after the receipt of said reply from R2 bank, addressed two letters on 23-1-1995 and 30-1-1995 to the Post master Kadapa lodging complaint about missing R.P. letter addressed to R2 bank sent for collection Xerox copies of letters dt. 23-1-1995 and 30-1-1995 are herewith filed. The Kadapa post master sent a reply on 2-2-1995 stating that they are attending the complaint. The Kadapa post master again on 20-2-1996 sent a reply stating that the said R.P. cover sent from Kadapa on 9-12-1994 has been received by R2 bank on 17-12-1996. The aforesaid post master replies dt. 2-2-1995 and 20-2-1995 Photostat copies are filed.
16. This respondent after receipt of reply from post office sent a telegram to R2 bank to send the bill in case of non realization on 24-2-1995. This respondent addressed R.P. letter to R2 bank on 3-3-1995 informing about the fate of bill and telegram etc., this respondent bank once again sent telegram on 20-6-1995 to R2 bank since no reply received for the afore two reminders. The aforesaid two telegram copies and letters photo state copies are filed herewith.
17. This respondent on 24-8-1995 addressed a letter to the Regional Manager of R2 bank at Arrah about the missing bill by clear explanation of what is what. R2 bank on 5-4-1995 sent detail reply to this respondent clearly stating that they have not received the bill and also about petitioner letter. Photostat copy of the letter dt. 5-4-1995 is herewith filed. This respondent once again addressed a letter to R2 Regional Office on 18-4-1995 informing the postal reply etc., the Kadapa superintendent of post office on 8-8-1995 sent reply stating that the R.P. cover sent to R2 has been correctly delivered.
18. This respondent respectfully states that the entire steps taken by this respondent is known to the petitioner and this respondent has been informing the every step and effort made to the petitioner since he is bank standing customer with accounts. Therefore, the allegation that this respondent did not evince interest and liable to pay etc., are mischievous and defamatory statements.
19. It is settled law that elaborate scrutiny investigations and evidence etc., can be performed only in a regular Civil and criminal cases and not in proceedings before the Commission under the act which are mere or less summary in nature. IST 1992 page No. 487.
20. This respondent after the receipt of lawyer notice from the petitioner wrote a letter to R2 bank enclosing copy of lawyer notice, requesting them to inform the fare of bill with threat to file complaint before banking ombudsman. Further this respondent forwarded the material papers to their regional office for sending reply. The petitioner in fact informed about the steps taken in his interest and apprised about it. The lawyer’s reply sent by R2 bank is very clear about the fraud played by the fictitious firm who entered into credit deal with the petitioner. The said reply speaks the entire steps taken by both the banks R1 and R2.
21. This respondent categorically states that this respondent branch as per procedure forwarded the bill to R2w bank under Register post with acknowledgements due to R2w bank at Shapur this respondent liability has been ceased since the R.P. cover as per the post office endorsement has been delivered. This respondent or R2 bank cannot be fastened with any liability to pay the value of bill with Rs. 30,000/- compensation with costs and interest since there was foul play tampering of R.P. cover and taking delivery of goods at Chirakund Branch of R3. In Dhanbad District and not at Shapur. The petitioner ought to have careful at the time of entering into contract since goods sent to Chirkund instead of Shapur as per the address of firm. This respondent reserve his right to answer any objection allegations to be raised.
22. The entire facts and reveals clear case of cheating and impersonation and hence this forum has no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to try and the petitioner may be directed to approach C.B.C.I.D to trace out the real culprit who tampered the R.P. cover and released goods by producing original L.R. from R3 office at Chirkund. Therefore, prays that the Hon’ble forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
23. Counter filed by respondent No. 2 that the above complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. The alleged deficiency of service in the instant case is tainted with fraud and deception. As the entire case under complaint has arisen as a result of fraud, cheating and deception with dishonest intention from the beginning to end as will be born cut from the various circumstances and facts. It is not this respondent bank, who is responsible in the matter, rather the very complainant has been negligent, careless and unreasonable in the deal in question made with some miscreants. The concluding and reasonable circumstances showing negligence and carelessness and unreasonableness on the part of the very complainant are mentioned as under.
a) The complainant who is a consigner has alleged that the goods in question had been sent to the consignee – namely M/s Rajesh Textiles, Shapur in the District of Bhojpur but it is quiet peculiar and strange that the goods were sent through OL.R. No. 57602 of transport corporation of India, R3 to Chirkunda in the District of Dhanbad which is at a distance of about 600 K.M from Shapur District – Bhojpur where the consignee is alleged to have his or their business. But peculiarly enough there is no M/s Rajesh Textiles at Shapur and it is a fake firm. Taking this important fact in consideration the complainant has not made M/s Rajesh Textiles as a party in this case and has totally silent. Had M/s Rajesh Textiles a real genuine firm, the complainant must have perused the matter at length with them and might have lodged either a criminal case or a civil suit against the firm.
b) The R2 (Punjab National Bank) Shapur has made thorough enquiry in the matter and has come to the finding that M/s Rajesh Textiles have never existed at Shapur within District of Bhojpur. The only conclusion derived that the consignee M/s Rajesh Textile is a fake firm.
24. That initially a letter Or/35/94 dt. 11-1-1995 was received by this respondent on 18-1-1995 from the R1 (Corporation Bank) seeking fate about their bill OBCO No. 273/94, dt. 8-12-1994 containing L.R. No. 57602, dt. 7-12-1994 of T.C.I (R3) for Rs. 1,24,390/-. On receipt of this letter the R2 bank immediately sent a reply through Regd. Letter with acknowledgment on 19-1-1995 which was duly received by R1 on 24-1-1995. A certified photocopy of this letter is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘A’. it was clearly informed to the R1 that no such bill No. OBC 273/94, dt. 8-12-1994 was received by the R2. A photo copy of the acknowledgement receipt in connection with the above reply letter as received by R1 is enclosed as Annexure ‘B’.
25. It is noteworthy that consignment of goods was sent by the complainant to the consignee M/s Rajesh Textiles to the office of T.C.I at Chirkunda in the District of Dhanbad which is at a distance of about 600 K.M from Shapur. The point is as to why a firm should give his address for receiving a consignment at Chirkunda, where T.C.I has also so many offices around Shapur, District – Bhojpur. Had the complainant exercise due reasonable and careful diligence in the matter the miscreants could not have been able to achieve their fraudulent game against them.
26. That the entire fact alleged in the complaint has arisen as a result of fraud and deception committed by some unknown miscreants criminally exercising their foul game and offences against the complainant who have fallen victim to them on account of their want of diligence, carelessness and unreasonableness.
27. It is also worth mentioning that no name of the consignee and consignee bank has been mentioned on the said L.R. No. 57602, dt. 7-12-1994 as enclosed in the complaint. It is a matter of surprise that in the place of consignee bank’s name and address Corporation bank has been mentioned which shows that the consignee bank is corporation bank nearby Chirkunda and not the Punjab National Bank. It is a matter of surprise to how the alleged consign goods were delivered in the absence of the name and address of the consignee.
28 That under bank’s practice and rule the L.R or R.R. is endorsed by the bank with seal and signature of the Manager, but in the instance case it is wanting. The complainant has failed to furnish the endorsement with seal and signature of the R2 in token of proof that the same was endorsed in due course because fraud and forgery might have been detected.
29. That the corporation bank (R1) is making enquiry through their letter dt. 11-1-1995 to R2 for bill No. ONCO 273/94 for Rs. 1,24,390/- duly certified copy of the said letter is enclosed as marked Annexure ‘C’ on the other hand the complainant has claimed against a bill No. OBC No. 294/94, dt. 8-12-1994 for Rs. 1,30,890/- and they have very carefully concealed the said bill No. 274/94, dt. 8-12-1994 in their complaint although it was a material fact that the same has been suppressed from the District Consumer Forum. Copy of their notice dt. 13-7-1996 addressed to R1 & 2 is enclosed with their complaint.
30. That this R2 bank has not committed any wrong and deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. That the alleged L.R. No. 57602 of T.C.I never came in custody of the R2 as alleged by the complainant. All the allegations and statements made by the complainant are false, baseless and far from truth.
31. There is no relationship of Banker and customer between R2 and the complainant because their R2 has come in picture through postal media. The post office is also not made a party. It is not out of question that the alleged L.R invoice etc., might have been lost in postal transit. The facts and figures stated in the complaint petition attract the jurisdiction of criminal court in the aspect of criminality and civil court in the aspect of civil remedy. The prayer made in the complaint petition cannot be granted to the complainant without coming to a definite finding in the situation occasioned by fraud, cheating and other offences etc.,
32. That the alleged deficiency in service is occasioned by criminal activity and it is loss in business on account of the want of diligence and precaution of the complainant. The deficiency in service as alleged is made as a result of offence like fraud, deception and cheating committed by the miscreants. So it is not within the jurisdiction of the Dist. Consumer forum to investigate and enquire the criminal offence because deficiency as alleged by the complainant is tainted with fraud, deception and other offences under IPC.
33. That during the deal the complainant has not taken any precaution since the very map of India showing places of offences of TCI is available in all the offices of Transport Corporation of India. Had they exercised even a very little precaution, they would not have fallen in trap of the miscreants. It is also apprehended and not out of the miscreants. It is also apprehended and not out of equation that the complainant might have conspired with some miscreants for defrauding the banks which are national institutions and Govt. of India under takings.
34. That the entire facts and allegations contained in the complaint petition have been denied and they are resulting in the circumstances beyond the control and knowledge of the bank. That the allegations made in para 1 of the complaint petition are not admitted except that the R1 & 2 and R3 are genuine bodies. That the statements made in para No. 2 of the complaint petition are not within the knowledge of the R2 bank and as such they are denied.
35. That the amount of Rs. 1,30,890/- as mentioned in para No. 3 of the complaint petition are contrary and contradictory because of R1 has informed this R2 that an amount of Rs. 1,24,390/- was sent for collection against their bill No. OBC 273/94, dt. 8-12-1994 for the reasons well to them. That the allegation made in para 4 of the complaint petition are unfounded and incorrect. However R2 bank is not concerned with these allegation.
36. That the statements made in para 5 of the complaint petition are not unparliamentarily as wrongly misunderstood aby the complainant. In this connection reference is invited to para No. 4 & 5 of the reply notice dt. 26-5-1996 as sent by this R2 bank and received by the complainant. A copy of reply to their notice is already enclosed in the complaint petition. That the statements made in para 6 of the complaint petition are unfounded and wrong. As a matter of fact the alleged deficiency in service is resulted on account of miscreants and criminals and they are entirely beyond the control to power of the R1 and R2 banks.
37. That the statements made in para 7 of the complaint petition are incorrect and baseless. Their remedy does not lie in the Dist. Consumer Forum rather thy ought to have sued for their proper remedy either in a criminal court or a civil court against the real accused person involved in the deal as alleged. That the prayer for reliefs made in the complaint petitioner is not within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum due to aforesaid circumstances. As such the complainants are not entitled to any remedy, compensation and costs as made in their petition.
38. That the materials mentioned in the invoice and L.R enclosed with the complainant petition are not within the knowledge of this R2 bank. That the statement made in the complaint petition which are not specifically denied may be deemed to be denied and not admitted. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint petition with costs.
39. Respondent No. 3 called absent and set exparte on 6-11-1996.
40. The above complaint was filed before this Hon’ble forum on 24-8-1996 and it was numbered as O.P. No. 327/1996 on 6-9-1996. On 31-10-1997 the order was pronounced. In the result, directing the 3rd respondent shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,30,890/- with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from 7-12-1994 till realization, (2) the 3rd respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and (3) the 3rd respondent shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant.
41. After that the 3rd respondent i.e. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., appealed before A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Hon’ble A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa. After that the respondent No. 3 filed a Revision Petition No. 1968/2003 before the Hon’ble National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in that R.P. No. 1968/2003 the National Commission observed “Hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, and affirmed by the State Commission holding the petitioner liable cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. For determining the liability, after re-appreciating the evidence and considering the genuineness of the lorry receipts produced by the petitioner, the matter is remitted to the State Commission for decision in accordance with law”. The Hon’ble A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No. 706/2014 against the O.P. No. 327/1996 of District Consumer Forum, Kadapa held that the National Commission has categorically observed that evidence has to be re-appreciated and the liability has to be determined and the genuineness of the lorry receipts has to be considered, we are of the view that it is for the District Forum to come to the just conclusion after consideration, the genuineness of the lorry receipts and re-appreciating the evidence.
42. Accordingly, this matter is remitted back to the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa for fresh enquiry. Notice issued to both parties on 12-1-2015.
43. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent No. 3 or not?
- To what relief?
44. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A13 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B37 were marked.
45. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant is a wholesale cloth merchant at Kadapa. On 6-12-1994 M/s Rajesh Textile of Shapur, Bhojpur in Bihar State has purchased some cloth material for Rs. 1,32,890/- out of which they have paid an advance of Rs. 2,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 1,30,890/-. The complainant has entrusted the goods with R3 Transport carrier on 7-12-1994, the goods from Kadapa to Charakunda vide consignment No. 57602 which is ‘TO PAY’ L.R was issued by R3. The R1 banker of the complainant, as per instructions of the complainant submitted original L.R consignee copy, invoice etc., documents to R1 bank transaction to the R2 bank with a direction that the documents should be delivered against payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,30,890/-. The R2 shall sent amount to the R1 bank and it will be credited to the account of the complainant. In this transaction the R1 and R2 will collect their commission including postal charges. The complainant waited for considerable time to the amount under the invoice credited to his account, when enquired R1 he said that the amount was received by the R2. After 4 months the complainant enquired about the same and came to know that the party has taken delivery of goods on 3-1-1995 by producing consignment copy i.e. “TO PAY” L.R. It clearly shows that on 3-1-1995 paid to R2 and got released the documents. The R1 in his counter admitted the receipt of invoice to pay L.R etc., documents form complainant and forwarded to R2 collection at Shapur. It creates some suspicion on the complainant part and alleged M/s Rajesh Textiles, Shapur. It is a matter of surprise that in the place of consignee Bank’s name and address “Corporation Bank” has been mentioned which shows that the consignee bank is “Corporation Bank” and not “Punjab National Bank”. The R1 after receipt of original document from complainant on 7-12-1994 dispatched the said document under a register cover with acknowledgement bearing register No. 273/1994, dt. 8-12-1994 through Kadapa Head Post office to Shapur address furnished by the complainant. As per R1 version there is much correspondence between R1 and the postal authorities, as per R2 enquiry they came to know that there is no M/s Rajesh Textiles at Shapur, Bhojupr in Bihar State. As per R2 version, Chirkunda in the District of Dhanbad which is at a distance of about 600 K.M from Shapur District – Bhojpur where the consignee is alleged to have his business. Ex. A2 and B33 issued by the respondents Kadapa there is no doubt about the same. Ex. A2 and B33 consigner goods copy for 3rd respondent for transport. Again the 3rd respondent on 2-3-2015 filed the original transport corporation of India receipt it shows that the goods were delivered. So there is no liability on R3.
46. Exs. B5, B7, B9, B10, B12, B15, B19 are correspondence letters to the postal department. The complainant had not added the postal department as party to the proceedings and he had not added the said consigner M/s Rajesh Textiles, Shapur of Bhojpur district in Bihar State as a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant kept quiet for 1 ½ year without any reason. All these creates much suspicion on the part of the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint after 1 ½ year of incident. The complainant utterly failed to prove his case. The complainant did not attended before the Dist. Forum after the matter was remanded to the forum. The District Forum, Kadapa issued notices to all the parties on 12-1-2015. The 3rd respondent only appeared before the forum and filed the original document i.e. Ex. B36. Ex. B36 clearly prove that the consignment was delivered. The complainant utterly failed to prove his case and he is not eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
47. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 24th April 2015.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 X/c of invoice, dt. 6-12-1994.
Ex: A2 X/c of consignor copy Dt. 7-12-95.
Ex: A3 X/c of letter from R-3 to complainant, Dt. 6-4-1995.
Ex: A4 X/c of legal notice Dt. 13-7-1998 from complainant to R-1 and R-2.
Ex: A5 X/c of reply for Ex.A4 Dt. 26-7-1996 from R-2 to complainant.
Ex: A6 X/c of postal receipt for Ex.A4.
Ex: A7 X/c of postal acknowledgement of R-1 for Ex.A4.
Ex: A8 Endorsement on the reverse side of the letter dt. 8-8-1995.
Ex: A9 X/c of letter from R-1 to R-3 dt. 13-9-1996.
Ex: A10 X/c of letter from R-3 to R-1 Dt. 19-9-1996.
Ex: A11 X/c of letter from R1 to R3, Dt. 26-9-1996.
Ex: A12 Register containing copies of invoice.
Ex: A13 Relevant entry in Ex. A-12.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent. No.1.
Ex:B1 X/c of extract of Registered letters dispatched on 8-12-1994
to various parties.
Ex:B2 Relevant entry in the name of R-2 in Ex. B-1.
Ex:B3 X/c of letter dt. 11-1-1995 from R-1 to R-2.
Ex:B4 X/c of letter dt. 23-1-1995 from R-1 to R-2.
Ex:B5 X/c of letter from R-1 to post master, head post office, Cuddapah,
Dt. 23-1-1995.
Ex:B6 X/c of letter from R-2 to R-1 Dt. 19-1-1995.
Ex:B7 X/c of letter from R-1 to post master, Cuddapah Dt. 30-1-1995.
Ex:B8 X/c of letter from R-2 to R-1 Dt. 25-1-1995.
Ex:B9 X/c of letter from postal department to R-1 dt. 20-2-1995.
Ex:B10 X/c of telegramme from R-1 to R-2 dt. 24-2-1995.
Ex:B11 X/c of letter from R-1 to T-2 Dt. 8-3-1995.
Ex:B12 X/c of telegramme from R-1 to R-2 Dt. 20-3-1995.
Ex:B13 X/c of letter, Dt. 24-3-1995 from R-1 to Regional Bank of R-2.
Ex:B14 X/c of letter, Dt. 5-4-1995 from R-2 to R-1.
Ex:B15 X/c of letter , Dt. 18-4-1995 from R-1 to the Superintendent of Post
office, marking copy to R-3 and complainant.
Ex:B16 Signature of complainant on Ex. B15.
Ex:B17 X/c of letter Dt. 18-4-1995 from R-1 to the Regional Manager of R-2
copy marking to R-3, R-2 and complainant.
Ex:B18 Signature of complainant on Ex. B17.
Ex:B19 X/c of letter , Dt. 8-8-95 from Superintendent of Post Offices,
Cuddapah toR-1.
Ex:B20 X/c of letter, Dt. 20-7-1996 from R-1 to R-2.
Ex:B21 X/c of reply from Ex. B20 from R-1 to R-2 Dt. 6-8-1996.
Ex:B22 X/c of letter, Dt. 5-4-1995 from R-2 to R-1.
Ex:B23 Copy of delivery slip register.
Ex:B24 X/c of letter dt. 19-1-1995 from R-2 to R-1.
Ex:B25 X/c of letter, Dt. 11-1-1995 from R-1 to R-2.
Ex:B26 X/c of letter, Dt. 9-12-1994 received by R-2 from on N.D.
Rangamani.
Ex:B27 Letter dt. 30-6-1997 issued by R.D.O.
Ex:B28 X/c of letter Dt. 24-7-1997 from R-2 to Punjab National Bank,
Cuddapah.
Ex:B29 X/c of token seals issued by R-2 Bank.
Ex:B30 X/c of token seals issued by R-2 Bank.
Ex:B31 X/c of taken seal issued by R-2 Bank.
Ex:B32 X/c of taken seals issue dbyR-2 Bank.
Ex:B33 X/c of L.R. Consignee copy, Dt. 7-12-1995.
Ex:B34 X/c of letter Dt. 11-7-1997 from, R-1 to R-3.
Ex:B35 X/c of letter, Dt. 11-7-1997 from R-1 to R-2.
Ex:B36 Original Lorry receipt issued by R3 company, Dt. 7-12-1994.
Ex:B37 X/c of money Receipt issued by R3 company Dt. 3-1-1995.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- M/s Janapati Chinna Venkata Ramaiah and sons,
Rep. by its Managing Partner, J.C. Yanada Rao,
7/243-1, Bhagyanagar Colony, Kadapa – 516 002.
- The Manager, Corporation Bank, Kadapa.
- Sri C.K. Bramhaiah, Advocate for R2.
- Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R3.
B.V.P.
