ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this matter the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum taking into consideration that though the Postal Department initially had taken a stand that the registered letter had been delivered to the addressee but ultimately their stand was that the registered letter had not been delivered to the addressee, the petitioner Bank.
2. It may be stated that the complainant/ appellant had sent consignments of the value of Rs. 2,02,336 on 10.4.1997 of handloom sarees to M/s. Bhagawati Saree Emporium, Gowri Chowk, Patna through M/s. Economic Transport Organization, Patna. The documents were sent through Dena Bank, Coimbatore to ensure payment. Neither the amount was credited nor the documents were returned. When the complainant/petitioner wrote letters dated 27.5.1997 and 2.6.1997, it was transpired that registered letter No. R/l 924 addressed to the Central Bank of India. Patna had been delivered at Jagadamba Vastralaya at Fatehpur, EDSO, Patna on 28.4.1997. As such, the documents did not reach to the Manager, Central Bank of India, Guljani Bagh, Patna.
3. There is no dispute about the fact that not only the Dena Bank received papers but also sent by registered post No. 924 on 22.4.1997 through Head Post Office, Coimbatore to the Manager, Central Bank, Guljani Bagh, Patna. According to the case of the respondent, Dena Bank, it was a matter of police investigation ascertaining whether the alleged endorsements of Central Bank, Guljani Bagh, Patna on the lorry receipts were genuine or forged. This question could not be taken up and decided by the Consumer Forum. As such, the investigations were beyond the jurisdictions of the District Forum.
4. The Central Bank of India contested the matter, inter alia on the ground that there was no prior consent that the documents were sent to the Bank. They disputed genuineness of the endorsements on the documents. They claimed that if at all, there was deficiency in service, it was only on the part of the Postal Department and the Postal Department has not been impleaded as a party. Accordingly, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel and having gone through the record, Dena Bank was working under the instructions of the complainant. As such, Dena Bank could only be said to be agent of the complainant. If the Dena Bank had sent the documents by registered post and they are delivered by the postman to some other person then it could not be said by the petitioner that the Dena Bank had committed any deficiency in service. There was no specific instruction that these documents were to be sent through a special messenger, i.e., otherwise than by registered post. Consequently, the Dena Bank acted within the implied terms of the instructions and could not be blamed for deficiency in service. In ordinary course of business, such documents are sent by registered post and the documents were sent by registered post to Central Bank, Guljani Bagh, Patna. According to the complainant, the consignments were to be delivered to the 5th opposite party namely, M/s. Bhagawati Saree Emporium, Gowri Chowk, Patna.
6. Insofar as the Central Bank is concerned, in view of the subsequent stand taken by the post office, the documents were not delivered to the Central Bank of India, Guljani Bagh, Patna but to Jagadamba Vastralaya, Fatehpur, Patna. Thus, if we go by the version of the Postal Authorities, it would be evident if there was any deficiency in service, it could be attributed to the Postal Department only. If there is any dispute and any investigation is required to decide the genuineness of the endorsement in absence of Postal Authorities, Jagadamba Vastralyas, Fatehpur, Patna and the concerned carrier, the matter would not be within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.
7. In the aforesaid situation, it could not be said that the complainant/petitioner has proved that there was deficiency in service either on the part of opposite party No. 1 or opposite party No. 2.
8. Accordingly, the State Commission was justified in setting aside the order of the District.
9. However, while upholding the order, we also feel in the aforesaid circumstance that the petitioner should be given liberty to approach appropriate Forum like Civil Court and the petitioner should be entitled to seek exclusion of the time spent before the Consumer Fora under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute .
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.