CANARA BANK Vs. AHUJA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, awarding a sum of Rs. 43,600/ - with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. w.e.f. 16th January, 1991 till the date of payment with costs of Rs. 1,500/ -. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent is an exporter of goods to various countries and he had submitted two bills of exchange drawn by them on M/s. Tiru Garment Industries, Khatmandu, for a sum of Rs. 1,78,947/ - and the other for Rs. 6,24,541.72 respectively. These bills were submitted to the appellants for collection on 26th September, 1988 against letters of credit opened by Rashtriya Banijya Bank Ltd., Kathmandu, Nepal on behalf of the drawees of the bills. According to the respondents it was contended that normally, the payment against such bills were received within two weeks or so from the date of their submission for collection. The amount equal to the bills in question was credited to the account of the respondent/complainant on 9th December, 1988. However, on 15th January, 1990, the appellant informed the respondent that the proceeds of the said bills were received by them actually on 29th March, 1989 whereas the credit for the said amounts had been given in their account on 9th December, 1988 and the amount had already been enjoyed by the respondents. The appellant Bank consequently debited the account of the respondents with Rs. 43,587.10 being interest on the said amounts from 9th December, 1989 to 28th March, 1989. The respondent had filed the complaint alleging that the Bank could not debit that amount and they were liable to refund it to the respondent with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. with quarterly rests and pay Rs.

(2.) ,50,000/ - as damages. 2. The appellant contested the case and pointed out that the amount was actually received on 29th March, 1989 and the said amount of Rs. 8,03,488.71 should have been credited to the complainants account on that date only whereas the credit was through oversight given on 9th December, 1988, which means that this amount remained available to the respondent in their account and they utilised it. It may be noticed that the bills were received by the appellant for collection. It was not the case of bills being purchased as distinct from receiving the bills on collection basis which means credit could be legitimately given only after the amount has been collected. The State Commission, in our opinion, has erred in reaching the conclusion that 'if they had received the amount from the City Bank in March, 1988, they should have informed the complainant immediately and told them, that the amount of Rs. 8 lakh and odd had been deposited in their account on account of temporary advance, but it was not done. This further shows that the plea now taken by the opposite party is false'. The State Commission has based its conclusion on telex message from the Banijya Bank, Nepal to Citi Bank, New Delhi, dated 25th November, 1988, directing it to pay the said amount, and the letter of confirmation sent by the Banijya Bank, Nepal to the Citi Bank with a copy to the opposite party, but the State Commission has totally ignored the plea of the Bank that the amount was actually received from the Citi Bank only on 29th March, 1989. The State Commission has also not adverted to the Annexure R -1 to the Affidavit by way of evidence of one Mr. G.U. Kamath, Senior Manager of the appellant Bank. In this context it will be appropriate to reproduce the said letter dated April 13, 1989 written by Citi Bank to the Manager, Canara Bank. That letter reads as under :