MADHUR COURIER SERVICE vs MANOJ GUPTA And CO.

ADMITTED facts of this case are that appellant No. 1 is a Courier Service, and its Operation Manager, appellant No. 2 is at its operation office at Ambala Cantt. Proforma respondent No. 2 Chain Singh was working under appellant No. 2 at Nahan, District Sirmour. Respondent No. 1 handed over a letter to Chain Singh for being delivered at Gobindgarh Mandi, through the appellant courier servicwe. This letter contained two bank drafts of the total value of Rs. 71,500. These were not delivered to the addressee as per information received by the said respondent No. 1.

IN these circumstances, it informed the issuing Banker i.e., State Bank of INdia, Nahan, instructing to stop payment, as misuse was anticipated. However, respondent No. 1 was informed by its Banker that said drafts stood already encashed. When put to notice, appellant No. 2 and proforma respondent contested and resisted the claim of respondent No. 1, whereas appellant No. 1 was ex parte. What is its effect, will be dealt with hereinafter.

As already noted, appellant No. 2 admitted himself to be the agent of appellant No. 1 and proforma respondnet was the sub agent of appellant No. 2. It is specific case of the appellants that letter was handed over to proforma respondent by respondent No. 1 and receipt was issued in this behalf. This letter having contained Bank Drafts, was not mentioned. This resulted in preventing the appellants from getting this letter insured. It is further case of appellant No. 2 and proforma respondent No. 2 that the letter in question had been delivered to the addressee. But the drafts fell in wrong hands, therefore, those were encashed by 3 persons namely, Parshotam Lal, Rajesh Kumar and Smt. Dimpal wife of Rajesh Kumar. FIR in this behalf was registered on 12.1.2002 when all of them were arrested. Certain recoveries have also been made by the Police from these accused. As such, action, if any, can be taken by respondent No. 1 against these 3 persons, as well as against the issuing banker of the drafts along with Bank who encashed it. These pleas were contested by Smt. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. According to her, once it is admitted that the letter had been delivered to the party concerned, i.e., the addressee, then the non-disclosure of its containing Bank Drafts and/or the letter being not insured is wholly insignificant and does not in any manner affect the decision of the District Forum below. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of this appeal with costs.

RECEIPT of letter by the courier service as noted hereinabove, is not in dispute. Drafts having been sent is established from the pleadings of the parties. Stand of the appellant No. 2 and proforma respondent in their joint reply was, that letter was delivered to the addressee. However, it is their case that the 3 persons named above had got the Bank Drafts encashed and against whom FIR was lodged, whereafter they were arrested and some recovery effected being the employees of the addressee of the letter and set out as a defence by the appellants. In these circumstances, the duty was more onerous on the appellants to have shown as to whom and in what manner, letter sent by Courier containing Bank drafts was delivered. No material to substantiate such a plea has been brought on record by the appellants, nor any satisfactory explanation could be put forth before us by them. In this background, appellants and proforma respondent having been deprived of getting the letter insured as alleged, does not in any manner improve their case. In these circumstance, we feel that the order passed by the District Forum below calls for no interference in this appeal as it suffers from no infirmity any whatsoever. Ordered accordingly. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Singh urged that since case has been registered against the 3 persons named above, who were arrested and from whom some recoveries have also been effected at least this Commission may direct that on the recovered amount being released by the appropriate Court, his clients will be entitled to it. He further stated that liberty may be reserved to his clients to approach such Court/Forum for recovery of the amount in question with interest and costs, etc. against three above-named persons who had encashed the Bank drafts. Both these prayers seem to be just and reasonable in the peculiar circumstances of this case, and thus allowed.

NO other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum below, it is ordered that in case appellants approach respondent NO. 1 for taking steps for release of the recovered amount, at any stage of the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR registered against 3 persons, namely Parshotam Lal, Rajesh Kumar and Mrs. Dimpal then at the cost and expense of the appellants, needful will be done by respondent NO. 1. In addition to this, liberty is also reserved to the appellants for taking such suitable action including any civil action for recovery of the amount or any part thereof against these three persons if so advised and in accordance with law. Subject to these observations, appeal stands disposed of. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Copy of this order shall be supplied by the office to the parties free of cost as per rules. Appeal dismissed.