Bank not held liable for damages caused by non-retirement of documents by Company, lack of evidence on loss incurred by complainant due to expiry of medicines

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—Brief facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant entrusted the goods receipt Hundi for a sum of Rs. 97,645.15 p. drawn on M/s. Somatico Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., C-469, M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Pawne, Nai Mumbai (hereinafter called the ‘Company’) to the respondent Andhra Bank through its Manager, Vashi Branch, Sector 17, Vashi, Nai Mumbai (hereinafter called the ‘Bank’) for delivering the documents to the said Company against payment of Rs. 97,645.15 p. On receipt of the money, the same was to be remitted to the complainant at Jalandhar City. A further direction was made to the Bank that in case the documents are not retired by the Company, the documents then be sent immediately/positively after 35 days i.e. on 20.12.1997 because the goods sent by G.R. were medicines which were to be consumed within a specific period. Respondent Bank failed to remit the money or send the documents back within stipulated period of 35 days. It is then averred in the complaint that several complaints were made to the respondent Bank and their Head Office but they did not bother. Finally, when notices were sent, they informed the complainant that necessary enquiry is being made. Finally, documents were sent back on 4.6.1998 at the risk and responsibility of the Company and the said Company was requested to settle the matter as the Bank had received notice from the Counsel of the appellant. On receipt of documents, the goods were not recalled as they had become unusable due to lapse of time and the cause of calling the goods back would have been a total loss. For this deficiency and negligence on the part of the Bank i.e. not returning the documents back to the complainant within a stipulated period, a prayer was made before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’) to give direction to the respondent Bank to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- along with interest @ 18% and further interest @ 14% along with costs of the complaint.

2. For the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party i.e. the Bank in not sending the documents within 35 days as referred to above, the District Forum, Jalandhar, granted to the complainant compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the complaint. The other claim of the complainant for Rs. 1,30,000/- as damages which included Rs. 97,645.15 p. price of the Hundi was declined by holding that the damages claimed are too remote as neither the name of the medicines have been disclosed nor the dates of expiry have been disclosed. It was also held by the District Forum that Bank through whom the documents were negotiated could not be held responsible for any damages as the Bank had accepted only the documents for negotiations.

3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the record.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the complainant had entrusted the goods receipt Hundi for a sum of Rs. 97,645.15 p. drawn on M/s. Somatico Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Nai Mumbai, to the opposite party for delivering these documents to the said party against payment of Rs. 97,645.15 p. and on receipt of money the same was to be remitted to the complainant at Jalandhar and a direction was made to the respondent that in case the documents were not retired by the said Company, the documents be returned positively after 35 days as the goods sent by G.R. were medicines which were to be consumed in a specific period. The opposite party failed to remit the money or send the documents within the stipulated period. Thus, the Bank was negligent and deficient in providing due service to the complainant.

5. This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is without any force. The opposite party/Bank through whom the documents were negotiated cannot be held responsible for the damages, if any, caused to the complainant