RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER, JAIPUR

THIS complaint is filed by Rajasthan State Electricity Board against State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for recovering Rs. 25,04,337/- on the ground that Bank Guarantee given by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. was invoked on 30th May, 1996, that is, before expiry of the period of Bank Guarantee, but was not paid by respondent No. 1 Bank.

IT is the contention of the Bank that the complainant has not invoked the Bank Guarantee on 30th May, 1996. The alleged letter written by the complainant for the same was not received by the Bank. For the first time after receipt of the letter of the complainant dated 20th February ,1997, they came to know about it and necessary information was sent to the said effect. Therefore, the only question which requires determination in this complaint is, whether the letter dated 30th May, 1996 invoking the Bank Guarantee was received by the Bank.

For this purpose, learned Counsel for the complainant referred to the postal receipt dated 31st May, 1996, extracts of the register maintained by the Electricity Board for despatch of the letters. He also relied upon Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which reads thus: "Meaning of service by post- Where any (Central Act) or regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, where the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

HE, therefore, submitted that once a letter was sent by registered A.D., service shall be deemed to be effect as the letter was properly addressed. For this purpose, he referred to the subsequent letters dated 20th February, 1997 and 29th March, 1997 written by the complainant to the Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Connaught Place, New Delhi. HE contended that undisputedly the said letters were received by the Bank and there is no reason to arrive at the conclusion that the letter invoking the Bank Guarantee was not received by the Bank even though it was sent to the same address. It is his contention that if some officers of the Bank commit some wrong, complainant should not suffer. As against this, learned Counsel Mr. Mehra appearing for opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complainant has not produced on record registered acknowledgement due receipt. It is his contention that there was no reason for the Bank not to pay the amount of Bank Guarantee, if the Bank had received the said letter. For this he referred to the affidavit dated 20th July, 2004 filed on behalf of the Bank by Satender Kumar Tomar, who is working as Assistant Manager at Connaught Circus Branch wherein it is specifically stated that the Bank has not received the alleged letter dated 30th May, 1996 which is alleged to have been posted on 31st May, 1996. As no letter invoking the Bank Guarantee was received up to 8th June, 1996, the Bank stands absolved of its liability under the Bank Guarantee and subsequent letters dated 20th February, 1997, 29th March, 1997, 22nd June 1997 and 19th July, 1997 sent by the complainant are of no avail.

IN our view, there is substance in the contention of the Bank that if Bank had received the invocation letter dated 30th May, 1996, then there was no reason for the Bank not to pay the said amount to the complainant Electricity Board. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced on record the registered acknowledgement due receipt. Further, it is difficult to comprehend the conduct of the complainants/its officers in not verifying from the Bank for months together, whether the letter dated 30th May, 1996 was received by the Bank and the amount as per the Bank Guarantee was remitted to the complainant. There is nothing on record to indicate that after 31st May or before 8th June, 1996, that is the date of expiry of Bank Guarantee, complainant had enquired from the Bank with regard to the receipt of letter dated 30th May, 1996 till 20th February, 1997. It appears that there was no inquiry nor any follow up action for a period of eight months. Delay in making inquiry for a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs after lapse of eight months cannot be justified. If the complainant was serious about invoking the Bank Guarantee, its officers would have taken prompt action and would have verified why such a large amount was not paid by the Bank. That has not been done. Therefore, it would be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the Bank had received the letter dated 30th May, 1996 prior to expiry date of the Bank Guarantee, and, yet it has not paid the said amount. It is true that under the provisions Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 that if a letter is posted by registered post, the service is deemed to be effected provided there was proper address on the letter. There is no dispute with regard to the proper address. The dispute is limited with regard to the receipt of the letter. In the present case, as contended by the complainant, the letter was sent by registered A.D. Therefore, it was expected that the complainant would receive the same acknowledgement due receipt. Secondly, if letter was received, there is no reason for the bank to deny the receipt of the letter by filing affidavit.

THIRDLY, learned Counsel Mr. Mehra rightly referred to the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji and Another, 1990 (4) SCC 497, and contended that even there is presumption of service of letter sent by registered post, it can be rebutted by the addressee by stating that he never received such letter. He pointed out that the Bank Officer, as stated above, has filed an affidavit to the aforesaid effect. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has observed that whether such denial is truthful or not, would be required to be decided in facts and circumstances of each case, but, if there is nothing to disbelieve the statement, then, it would be sufficient rebuttal of presumption of service of such letter which was sent by registered post. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Bank Officer. Further, the Postal Department by its letter dated 30th August, 1997 has also rejected the complaint, as it was time-barred.

IN this view of the matter, in our view, there is no substance in this complaint and is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.