- (1.) BY way of this appeal, original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 representing State Bank of Saurashtra have brought under challenge order dated 23.2.2004 rendered in Complaint Application No. 39 of 2001 by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar insofar as the same is against State Bank of Saurashtra. The complaint has been filed by the original complainant on following brief facts.
(2.) THE complainant had Current Account No. 5839 with opponent No. 3 Navanagar Co -operative Bank Limited. The complainant went to the said Co -operative Bank on 12.4.2001 to withdraw Rs. 2,00,000/ -. It was the complainant s grievance that one of the bundles of notes of Rs. 100/ - denomination did not have six currency notes of Rs. 100/ - and contained only 94 currency notes aggregating to Rs. 9,400/ -. The complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the cashier of the said Co -operative Bank on the same day but the cashier told the complainant that as the accounts for the day were closed, the complainant should approach the said Co -operative Bank on the next day which was 16.4.2001. On that day complainant accompanied with one Shri Arvindbhai Shah, employee of the said Co -operative Bank had an occasion to approach State Bank of Saurashtra through its concerned branch office as the bundle stood transmitted from State Bank of Saurashtra to opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank. The complainant alleged that one Mr. Manishbhai had abused and insulted the complainant with the result that the complainant addressed letter dated 18.4.2001 to the State Bank of Saurashtra followed by notice through his Advocate sent on 26.4.2001. State Bank of Saurashtra replied to the notice on 9.5.2001 denying the allegations made by the complainant. The complainant, therefore, approached the learned Forum by way of aforesaid complaint. Both the Banks namely State Bank of Saurashtra and the aforesaid Co -operative Bank denied the allegations made in the complaint, Opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank specifically alleging that the complainant left the said Bank with the amount withdrawn without counting the notes and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim Rs. 600/ - on the ground that there were six notes of denomination of Rs. 100/ - less in one bundle. Opponent State Bank of Saurashtra resisted the complaint also on the ground that the complainant could not be said to be a consumer in the eye of law and there was no service which was either agreed to be rendered or actually rendered by that Bank to the consumer. The complainant did not have locus standi to file complaint against State Bank of Saurashtra. The learned Forum accepted the case of the complainant and issued directions against both the Banks. Opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank was directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - whereas the opponent State Bank of Saurashtra was directed to pay not only compensation of Rs. 2,000/ - but also an amount of Rs. 600/ - represented by six notes of Rs. 100/ - denomination found less in the bundles stated to have been transmitted from State Bank of Saurashtra to opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank. This appeal is filed by original opponent State Bank of Saurashtra as stated above.
(3.) WE have gone through the impugned order. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal. We have also gone through the averments made in the original complaint which have been briefly noted herein above. It has first been submitted that even as per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the opponent State Bank of Saurashtra. There is a great deal of force in the submission so made. It is not the case of the complainant that he happened to be a consumer of the opponent State Bank of Saurashtra in any manner. In fact, his case was that he was consumer having his current account as stated above with the opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank. His allegation of facts also indicated that he had withdrawn the amount from opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank. Therefore, even if his allegations were found factually true, opponent No. 3 Bank would be answerable to the complainant for the loss of Rs. 600/ - by way of six notes of Rs. 100/ - found less in one of the bundles of notes of denomination of Rs. 100/ - handed over by the cashier of opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank to the complainant against his withdrawal of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Merely because the opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank in the past had some occasion to get the bundles from State Bank of Saurashtra, it cannot be said that complainant would be entitled to claim any amount of loss or compensation from State Bank of Saurashtra. At best, it can be said that the dispute might be between opponent No. 3 Co -operative Bank and the other opponent State Bank of Saurashtra, now appellant before us. Thus, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer either in his own right or as beneficiary in any manner so as to have his dispute adjudicated against the State Bank of Saurashtra represented by original opponent Nos. 1 and 2. On this short ground itself, the appeal is required to be allowed.;