UNIT TRUST OF INDIA versus RAVINDER KUMAR SHUKLA, ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 19-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNIT TRUST OF INDIA 
v. 
RA VINDER KUMAR SHUKLA, ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 
B 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
Cheques-Sent by post-Non receipt of-Complaint before Consumer C 
Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the payer-Courts held the 
payer liable to pay and negligence on its part-On appeal, held: Drawer is 
liable to pay-Loss has to be borne by it, the post office being its agent in 
absence of any contract or request from the drawee to send 1he amount by 
post. 
D 
Respondents-unit holders of the units of the appellant-company had 
filed complaints before District Forums alleging that they had not received 
the cheques issued by the appellant and sent through post. The Consumer 
Forums held that appellants were bound to pay the amount to unit holders; 
that there was negligence on the part of the appellant; and that post offices E 
being agents of the appellants, the loss was to be borne by the appellant. 
Most of the Appeals/Revisions were dismissed by National Consumer 
Commission. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. In the absence of any contract or request from the payee, 
mere posting would not amount to payment. In cases where there is no 
contract of request either express or implied, the post office would continue 
to act as the agent of the drawer. In that case the loss is of the drawer. In 
F 
the present case there was no proof of any contract that any request had G 
been made by any of the payees that the amount lie sent by post. 
1285-D-F) 
The Commissioner of income-Tax. Bombay South v. Messrs. Oga/e Glass 
Works Ltd, Ogale Wadi, 1195511SCR185 and H.P. Gupta v. Hirata/, 11970) H 
281 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A I sec 437, relied on. 
2. It cannot be said that there was no deficiency of service as there 
was no negligence on the part of the appellant. All the Forums have on 
facts held that there was an obligation to send the amounts and that there 
B was negligence. These are questions on fact. There is no reason to interfere 
on questions of fact. (285-G-H; 286-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1619 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.2002 of the National 
C Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1182 of 
2001. 
WITH 
D 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4247/2004, 1659/2005, 1657/2005, 4282/2004, 4248/ 
2004, 1660/2005, 1652/2005,4284/2004,4283/2004,4279/2004, 1651/2005,4275/ 
2004, 1661/2005, 1663/2005, 1665/2005,4278/2004,4280/2004,4281/2004, 1662/ 
2005, 1664/2005,4276/2004,4277/2004, 1654/2005,1658/2005, 1655/2005, 1656/ 
2005, 1653/2005, 1620/2005, 1621 /2005,4285/2004,4286/2004,428712004,4288/ 
2004, 1623/2005,4289/2004,4290/2004, l624/2005, 1622/2005,4291/2004, 
E 429212004, 4293/2004, 1626/2005, 162712005,4294/2004, 162512005, 16281 
2005, 4295/2004,4296/2004,4297 /2004,4298/2004,4299/2004, 4300/2004, 
4304/2004,4305/2004, 1629/2005, 1630/2005, 1631/2005, 1632/2005, 1633/ 
2005, 1634/2005,4308/2004,4309/2004, 1636/2005, 1635/2005,4310/2004, 1637 I 
2005, 1638/2005,4311/2004,1639/2005, 1640/2005, 4249-4250/2004,4251-
F 4252/2004,4265-4266/2004,4255-4256/2004,4261-4262/2004,4257-4258/ 
2004;4267-4268/2004, 1649-1650/2005,4263-4264/2004, 1643-1644/ 
2005,4253-4254/2004, 164 7-1648/2005,4259-4260/2004,1645-1646/ 
2005, 1641-1642/2005, 4269-4270/2004, 4271-4272/2004 and 4273-4274/ 
2004) 
G 
K.N. Bhat, M.L. Verma and Mrs. Tehmina Punvani, Shrish Kumar 
Misra, Parveen Mehndiratta, Ravi Kant, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Suvira Lal, 
Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Ms. Pareena Swarup, V.K. Verma, Shreekant 
N. Terdal, Shakil Ahmed Syed, C. Mukund, Ashok Jain, Pankaj Jain, Bijoy 
H. Kumar Jain, Ajit Bhama, Ms. Sunita Sharma, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, Ms. 
UNITTRUST OF INDIA v. RA VINDER KUMAR SHUKLA, ETC. 
283 
Bina Madhavan, Mrs. Pooja Gupta, Ms. Susan Zachariah, A. Venayagam, A 
Hema! Seth, Sandeep Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. Amrita Bhinder, 
Rajan Narain, K.R. Nambiar, K. Surendran, Ms. Reena Singh, Ms. Bhakti 
Pasrija, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Ajay Siwach, 
M.T. George, Devandra Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Ghanshyam, Pranab 
Kumar Mullick, D.S. Mabra, Subramonium Prasad, Gopala Krishnan R., Anil B 
Kumar Sangal, Nalin Sangal, Deba P. Mohanty, Ms. Hena Rizvi, Ms. Syed 
Hena Rizvi, Nand Lal, Ms. peepali Puri, R.D. Upadhyay, Jawahar Chawla, 
R.V. Sinha, Amit Chawla, Balraj Dewan, Vinay Kumar Garg, M.P. Shorawala,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.