SAPRI GARMENTS PVT LTD Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint brought by the complainant seeking relief against the Bank. The claim of the complainant is based on a forward exchange contract which it had entered into with the Bank for an amount equal to 6 lakh Deutche Marks. The forward exchange contracts are entered into by parties who wish to protect themselves against the risk arising out of the fluctuations in the rates of foreign exchange. Such contracts are generally enterd into by the exporters and importers with their bankers. The contract provides for delivery or receiving foreign currency at a pre-determined rate and pre-determined time.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that he was manufacturing leather goods to be exported to Germany. The Government of Germany imposed a ban on the import of leather articles containing pentachlorphenol (PCP). The goods of the complainant were treated with this chemical which it was discovered to be causing cancer. As a consequence whereof, the goods for which the complainant had received orders could not be exported to Germany. There is no evidence brought on record to show what happened to those goods and where were those sold and at what price. The complainant has also not produced on record any letter or document requiring the Bank to cancel the forward exchange contract. The complainant has alleged having paid to the bank an excess amount on account of non-cancellation of the forward purchase contract, details of none of the items or the statements showing the excess charge have been placed on record. No details of the alleged loss have been placed on record. Further, the cause of action for seeking cancellation of such contract with the Bank is alleged to have arisen in the year 1989 when the contract of forwarding exchange was entered into and thereafter it arose when the complainant got permission of the Reserve bank of India for cancellation of the forward exchange contract.

(3.) Assuming that such cause of action had continued till the year 1994, when the complainant has alleged to have sought one-time-settlement with the Bank, then the limitation for settlement of the account started running from the year 1991 when the complainant got permission of Reserve Bank of India to cancel the contract. Assuming as alleged by the complainant that the cause of action continued till 1994 when it sought one-time settlement offered by the complainant, the limitation to file the complaint would be hopelessly time barred. The complainant's going to the banking Ombudsman at Chennai cannot extend the time. It is not shown as to when did he approach the Ombudsman. Further, the complainant's failure to settle the dispute in the year 1997 would also in no way extend the time as there is no acknowledgement of liability placed on record. Therefore, we find that this complaint is barred by limitation and no application for enlargement of time or furnishing reasons as to why it should be entertained beyond limitation has been filed. For this, we think, the best place to determine such controversy would be Civil Court where the accounts would be rendered in detail as adjudication of such disputes is not possible in a summary way in the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed as time barred without prejudice to the complainant's right to approach the Civil Court or any other Forum. Complaint dismissed.