State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs M/S.Vimal Syncot Mills on 16 September, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.205 OF 2008 Date of filing : /2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.332/2006 Date of order: 16/09/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SANGLI @ MISC.APPLICATION NO.328/2008 State Bank of India Chandwara Main Road, Chandwara 825 421 District Koderama, State Zharkhand ..Appellants/org.o.p. v/s. M/s.Vimal Syncot Mills Prop.Pavankuma Parakhmalji Kocheta R/o.Pawan House,43/44 Raviwar Peth, Madhavnagar 416 407 District Sangli ..Respondent/org.complainant Corum: Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member Present : Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.M.Jain-Advocate @ Mrs.Anita Marathe-Advocate for the respondent.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. This appeal is filed by original O.P. against whom an award has been passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.332/2006 decided on 15/1/2008, whereby the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed O.P. -State Bank of India, Chandwara Main Road, District Koderama, State Zharkhand to pay an amount of Rs.2,02,486/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 18/9/2006 and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant.
2. Briefly case of the complainant was as under:-
Complainant filed consumer complaint against Manager, State Bank of India Chandwara Main Road, District Koderama, State Zharkhand in District Consumer Forum, Sangli alleging that complainant was running a Mill styled as M/s.Vimal Syncot Mills at Sangli. It is dealing in cloth. One Shri Ramkumar Gupta approached him for purchase of cloth. He placed an order and on the basis of Hundi, goods were sold by the complainant. He agreed to honour hundi. Goods were agreed to be sent to the destination at Chandwara through Transport Corporation of India. Shri Gupta deposited hundi and commission amount with State Bank of India, O.P. Goods were sent to Chandwara on 25/3/2006 and 5/4/2006. Delivery receipt, hundi, L.R. invoice and other documents were sent to the O.P. Bank by registered post by the complainant. As per procedure, hundi was to be honoured by paying amount in the State Bank of India, Chandwara Main Road, District Koderama, State Zharkhand and then delivery was to be effected by Transport Corporation of India (TCI) and amount collected towards hundi was to be sent to the complainant through State Bank of India, Sangli Branch. However, it appears that somebody committed forgery at the office of State Bank of India, Chandwara Main Road, District Koderama, State Zharkhand and on the basis of forged documents, without making payment of the complainant, goods were delivered by TCI, Chandwara branch to Shri Gupta. The complainant did not receive consideration amount towards hundi through State Bank of India, Sangli. Hence he sent registered notice and thereafter filed consumer complaint against State Bank of India, Branch Chandwara Main Road, Zharkhand State and claimed an amount of Rs.2,02,486/- with interest and cost, etc.
3. O.P. Bank filed written statement and denied all the allegations made against it. It specifically pleaded that District Consumer Forum, Sangli had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It pleaded that it was not having knowledge about the contract between complainant and one Shri Gupta of Zharkhand. It pleaded that Shri Gupta and TCI were necessary parties and there are not impleaded and therefore, complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It pleaded that after receipt of notice from the complainant, it made enquiry with the bank and found that it had not received envelope sent by the complainant, so it learnt that somebody had committed forgery by misusing official seal of the bank and without its intervention, somebody has collected goods on the basis of forged documents without paying anything to the complainant. It therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
4. On the basis of affidavits and documents filed before it, the Forum below was of the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P.Bank. It brushed aside the objection raised by O.P. that complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It also turned down the objection of jurisdiction taken by O.P. According to Ld. District Consumer Forum, consumer complaint as filed by complainant in District Consumer Forum, Sangli was maintainable and therefore it allowed the complaint and directed to make payment as mentioned in opening para of the judgement. Aggrieved thereby, State Bank of India has filed this appeal.
5. We heard submissions of Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.S.M.Jain-Advocate @ Mrs.Anita Marathe-Advocate for the respondent.
6. We perused the impugned order and the documents filed with appeal memo. We are finding that appeal is required to be allowed for the simple reason that complaint as filed in the District Consumer Forum, Sangli, was not maintainable in District Consumer Forum, Sangli and District Consumer Forum Sangli had no jurisdiction to entertain and try consumer complaint filed against State Bank of India, Main Road Chandwara, District Koderama, State Zharkhand. What is pertinent to note is the fact that complainant Shri Pavankumar Kocheta is from Madhavnagar, District Sangli. He had some dealings with Shri Ramkumar Gupta, who placed certain order for supply of cloth. It was to be supplied as against hundi. Hundi was to be honoured by the said Shri Ramkumar Gupta at Chandwara by making payment of hundi in State Bank of India, Main Road Chandwara and as against acceptance of the hundi, State Bank of India, Chandwara would give advice to TCI to release goods from its godown. What is significant to note is the fact that there was no direct privity of contract between complainant on one hand and Manager, State Bank of India, Main Road Chandwara on the other hand. Transaction was between complainant on one hand and Shri Ramkumar Gupta on the other hand. Shri Ramkumar Gupta was not made party. Goods were delivered to TCI Branch of Sangli for transportation to Chandwara, District Koderama, State of Zharkhand. So TCI was also necessary party. When these two persons were not made necessary party, complaint as filed in the District Consumer Forum, Sangli only against Manager, State Bank of India, Main Road Chandwara, District Koderama, State Zharkhand was not tenable in law. Moreover, the complaint is required to be filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint is required to be filed, where O.P. resides, carries on business or works for gain or where cause of action accrued. So far as State Bank of India, Main Road Chandwara is concerned, no cause of action had accrued independently against O.P./appellant at Sangli. No other party has been impleaded in the complaint filed in District Consumer Forum, Sangli. There was no direct dealing or privity of contract between complainant and appellant bank herein. So neither cause of action has been accrued against State of India at Sangli nor Manager, State Bank of India, Main Road Chandwara, District Koderama, State Zharkhand is carrying on business or is having branch office at Sangli. In the circumstances, in our view this complaint should have been filed in District Consumer Forum Koderama in the State of Zharkhand.
7. However, in the course of arguments, even Mr.Patwardhan agreed that had the complainant/ respondent impleaded TCI and Shri Ramkumar Gupta as necessary parties, matter could have been entertained legally by the District Consumer Forum, Sangli. Of course, we may hesten to add that he has not conceded fully, but there was concensus that if these two parties would have been impleaded as party, may be District Consumer Forum Sangli would have got jurisdiction to entertain and try the said complaint. Mr.Jain-Advocate for the respondent therefore suggested us that matter should be remitted back to the District Consumer Forum Sangli, so that his client would make appropriate amendment by adding Shri Ramkumar Gupta and TCI as necessary party. In the circumstances, we are of the view that impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sangli will have to be quashed and set aside and the complaint will have to be remitted back to the District Consumer Forum for proper adjudication, after respondent amends the complaint and impleads two more persons as party to the complaint. In the circumstances, we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sangli is quashed and set aside.
3. Consumer complaint no.332/06 is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum, Sangli subject to cost of Rs.3000/- payable by the complainant to the appellant/org.O.P.
4. Forum below may decide the complaint afresh without getting influenced by whatever observation we have made in this judgement.
5. If the respondent files amendment application to implead parties, forum below may decide the same on its own merit.
6. Misc.application stands disposed of.
7. Inform the parties accordingly.
(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.