State Bank of India vs B.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (I)

THIS petition has been filed by the State Bank of India against that concurrent findings of deficiency in service by both, the District Forum as well as the State Commission. The brief facts involved in the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of engines, pump sets etc. and has been supplying these products all over India through dealers and distributors. The respondent had sent certain bills of exchange drawn on M/s. Unique Agro Services along with goods receipt of transporter of A.B.C. India Limited for collection with instruction to remit the proceeds by Demand Draft to the respondent/complainant. These documents were sent to the petitioner on collection basis, which means, the documents and goods receipt etc. were to be delivered by the Bank to the drawee of the bill of exchange against payment. However, the Bank had further instructions that if the drawee does not retire the bills within 7th June, 1994 then the bills and goods receipts were to be returned to the respondent.

WHEN neither the documents were returned nor the payment was received, the respondent sent reminders to the Bank followed by legal notice, but neither money was sent nor the unretired documents were returned. Several months later vide their letter dated 28.3.1995, petitioner informed the respondent that these bills and receipt were collected by one, Mr. M.M. Konar, who represented himself to be agent of his employer for collecting the payment. Repeated reminders did not yield any payment nor the Bank retrieved the documents from Mr. Konar. The contention of the Bank was that Mr. Konar was the representative of the respondent on repeatedly asking, the Counsel has not been able to show any document which had authorised Mr. Konar to act on behalf of the B.S. Agricultural Industries India. The only letter he could find out was written by Mr. Konar himself declaring himself to be Sales Manager of the respondent. In this case we think that the facts of the case are eloquent enough to leave no doubt about the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in delivering the documents without collecting payments. We have not found any infirmity in the order passed by the two Fora i.e. the District Forum as well as the State Commission. This petition has no merit, therefore, it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.