STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEEPAM SIZING MILLS
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2011-3-38
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 22,2011

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The 1st opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/ 1st Respondent, had consigned, grey sheeting worth of Rs.1,56,185/- on 4.7.2002, to the consignee in Bihar, through the 2nd opposite party/carrier, entrusting the documents, with the 1st opposite party, for collection of amount from the consignee, and credit the same in his account. On enquiry, the 1st opposite party informed, that they had sent the document, by registered post, whereas the branch at Dehri, omitted to inform the 1st opposite party, regarding the collection of the amount. Under the said circumstances, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party, to return the bill, since the amount was not credited, they refused. The consignee also ha not paid the amount. It appears, without the documents viz. lorry receipt, and other documents viz. invoice, the 2nd opposite party had delivered the goods, which should be construed as negligent act, as well as deficiency in service. The 1st opposite party who undertook to collect the amount, for which he had also collected some service charges, failed to collect the amount, thereby they have also committed deficiency. Despite repeated demands and notice, since both the parties have failed, to pay the value or return the goods, or the documents, the complainant is constrained to file the case, for the recovery of the value of the goods viz. Rs.1,56,185/-, with compensation of Rs.75000/-, with cost.
(3.) The 2nd opposite party admitting the entrustment of the documents, resisted the case, contending that the transaction since amounts to commercial one, the consumer forum has no jurisdiction, that Dehri branch informed, that they have not received the bill, for collection, though the post office have confirmed, about delivery of the documents, that the complainant has not stated, when the goods were handed over to the consignee, by the 2nd opposite party, without producing the records, that 2nd opposite party alone had cleared the goods, and consignee had received them, for which this opposite party cannot be held responsible, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.