AATISH INDUSTRIES Vs. HDFC BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Atul Tungare, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Ashutosh Marathe, Advocate for opponent on the point of admission of the complaint.

(2.) THE complaint has been filed by Aatish Industries and Mr. Atish Praful Mehta has been impleaded as complainant No.2. Complainant No.1 being partnership firm, complainant No.2 is cited as Managing Partner. The complainants asserted that they are carrying on business as exporter of Psyllium Husk, Spices Guar Gum and like other agricultural products. Opponent is the Bank and they had availed banking services of HDFC Bank. They had taken services of opponent as regards ascertaining creditworthiness of the bankers named by the consignees abroad. They pleaded that they undertook the export deal with the parties stationed in foreign countries with the advice of the opponent by ascertaining rating of Parties Bank and to pay to the opponent its service charges. The complainant further pleaded that buyers of the complainants goods stationed in foreign countries place orders with the complainant giving details of product required, quantity, quality, price, destination port, name of its bankers for collection and swift code of its bankers etc. After shipping the goods ordered by the buyers, complainant would approach banker and furnish details of the bankers of the consignees i.e. name of the bank, its swift code, branch number, etc. and sought advice of opponent/Bank as regard authentication of the particulars provided by the consignee. The opponent thereupon verifies the credentials of such bankers in foreign countries with reference to swift code provided by the complainant. After verifying the authenticity of the information provided by the complainants, opponent/Bank used to advise complainant either by confirming the particulars or rejecting the same. On the basis of advice received from the opponent/Bank, the complainant would ship the goods for being exported and deliver one set of documents to the opponent/Bank containing export consignment with the instruction to deliver such documents to the bankers named by the consignee on œcash against delivery  basis. In this process, in respect of some consignments, the opponent/Bank committed deficiency in service and therefore, they sustained loss. As such they filed consumer complaint claiming amount of Rs.39,32,259.31 being the price of exported goods with interest @ 21per cent p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. They also claimed cost of Rs.2,00,637 incurred by them for tracing the wrongful delivery of the documents in respect of exported goods made by the opponent. They further claimed from opponent Rs.2,50,000 by way of damages for causing mental agony, anxiety and harassment to the complainants for deficiency in service.

(3.) OPPONENT /Bank filed reply opposing admission of the complaint. According to the opponent/Bank, complainant is not a consumer and they are is in the export business as per their own showing in the opening paras of the complaint. Nowhere in the pleadings or in the complaint, they have mentioned that they are running this Aatish Industries for earning livelihood by way of self employment. Hence, opponent/Bank submitted that the consumer complaint is in respect of commercial transaction and they are not covered within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on this count complaint should not be admitted. They further pleaded that the complainant/Company is having huge business. They are exporting agricultural products and their bank statement shows that cumulative credit of Rs.40,23,72,658 to the account maintained with the opponent/Bank. Therefore, opponent/Bank contended that they are profit earning firm and all these transactions are pertaining to commercial transactions the firm had undertaken with foreign buyers. Therefore, consumer complaint as filed by them must be rejected at the stage of admission itself.