CANARA BANK Vs. SUNDESHWARI SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 23. 5. 2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U. P. , Lucknow, dismissing appeal against the order dated 26. 5. 1995 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay was allowed and the petitioner/opposite party No. 2-Bank was directed to pay Rs. 18,000 with interest @ 14% p. a. from November, 1993 to respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay. Respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 3 was further directed to pay to respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay, Rs. 500 as compensation and cost of Rs. 200.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 as first holder and complainant No. 2 as joint holder had obtained 18 non-cumulative 'a' series 1986 Bonds of Nayveli Lignite Corporation from respondent No. 2 for Rs. 18,000. Since the Bonds were to mature on 30. 9. 1993, the respondent No. 1 surrendered them in original duly discharged to enable respondent No. 2 to send the redemption amount thereof to her. Respondent No. 1 alleged that she did not receive the redemption amount upto October, 1993. She, therefore, sent a number of letters to respondent No. 2. Finally on 26. 1. 1994, the respondent No. 1 received a letter from respondent No. 2-Company that the redemption warrant had already been sent to her address on 23. 9. 1993. By the letter dated 10. 2. 1994, the respondent No. 2 further informed respondent No. 1 that the redemption warrant sent on 23. 9. 1993 had been encashed through the petitioner/opposite party No. 2-Canara Bank, Kalyani Devi Branch, Allahabad. Thereafter, on inquiry, it was found that the redemption warrant had been pilferred from the postal system and fraudulently encashed at the said branch of the Bank. It was stated that Bank had allowed opening of a new account impersonating respondent No. 1 and Ram Sahay and made payment of redemption warrant. FIR was lodged with the police by Ram Sahay and a copy thereof was also sent to respondent No. 2. Complaint was, thereafter, filed seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 3. In its written version, the respondent No. 2 alleged that its responsibility had ceased after the redemption warrant was sent by registered post through respondent No. 3. In its written version, petitioner Bank stated that the redemption warrant in question was deposited in the account and the money thereof was withdrawn. Opening of account and payment of redemption warrant were made in due course of business by the Bank in good faith. Superintendent of Post Office/respondent No. 3 in its written version alleged that registered letter No. 3970 from Anna Road Post Office, Madras was booked on 23. 9. 1993 and the same was received on 13. 10. 1993 in the Katcheri Post Office at Allahabad. The registered letter was delivered to the recipient. District Forum holding the petitioner Bank as deficient in service passed the order which was affirmed in the appeal filed by the Bank, by the State Commission.

(3.) WE have heard the parties learned Counsel.