Joint and several liability of the Courier Company and the Bank for the loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

As per Hon'ble Smt. Veena Misra, Member:

1. These appeals, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 3-3-2008 in Complaint No. OS/2007 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed against A.P. No.4 and it was stated that as there was separate cause of action, the complainant could file separate complaint against O.P. No.1 to A.P. No.3. Aggrieved by the order O.P. No.4 and the complainant have filed the aforesaid appeals.

2. Brief facts of the case are that O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are different offices of Courier Company through which the complainant had sent sealed envelope to be delivered to his father Shri S.B. Mishra at Raipur. The said envelope contained an account payee cheque in favour of Shiv Balak Mishra for Rs.40,000/- and also unsigned requisition slip for issuing new cheque book. The said letter was handed over to 0 .P. No.2 on 3-10-06 under consignment receipt No. 82065325 on payment of Rs. 30/-. As the said envelope did not reach the addressee till 610-06, the complainant enquired about non-delivery from A.P. No.2 who told that the envelope reached Raipur office but it was misplaced before it could be delivered. As per averments in the complaint, on receiving the aforesaid information the complainant intimated his father and wife on phone and asked his father to intimate the bank so that cheque No. 047753 could not be misused. It was further averred that the requisition slip was not signed but the same was to be signed by the wife of the complainant as she was joint account holder. As the envelope did not reach the addressee and the requisition slip was not signed, there was no possibility of issuance of new cheque book in favour of the account holder. But on 23-10-06 when the complainant approached the bank/O .P. No.4 for issuance of new cheque book, he was told that on 10-10-06 new cheque book containing cheque Nos. 055581 to 055590 was issued. On enquiry about the balance in the account, the complainant was told that on 11-10-06 an amount of Rs. 38,000/has been withdrawn vide cheque No. 055581. The complainant objected to the issuance of such cheque book in absence of signature of either the complainant or his wife on the requisition slip. It was alleged in the complaint that the amount was debited from the account due to negligence on part of O.P. No. 4/bank as concerned employee of the bank failed to tally the signature on the requisition slip with the specimen signature.

3. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the District Forum and rio reply was filed on their behalf. O.P. No.3 resisted the complaint and denied the averments made in the complaint. However, it was admitted that envelope sent by the complainant was received at the office of O.P. No.3 but before it could be delivered, the consignment was stolen. Report in tins regard was also lodged with Sundar Nagar Police Station. It was further averred that complainant is not a Consumer of O.P. No.3 hence there is no question of any deficiency in service on part of the said O.P.

4. O.P. No.4 submitted in its written version that the bank not committed any deficiency in service. Stop payment instruction was issued with regard to cheque No. 047753 for Rs. 40,0001- and in compliance of the said instruction O.P. No.4 stopped payment of the said cheque. It was averred that the complainant had given signed requisition slip and in consequence new cheque book was issued by the concerned employee. After receipt of new cheque book a sum of Rs.38,0001- was withdrawn on 11-10-06 vide newly issued cheque No. 055581. Hence there was no deficiency in service on part of the bank. It was farther averred that in case envelope was lost the complainant should have taken action against the Courier Company but the complainant has failed to do so and initiated proceedings against the bank on false pret