PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FARIDABAD Vs. ASHOK PIPE UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the public sector banks with-hold the rates of prescribed service charges in respect of inland letters of credit from their customers, is the somewhat significant issue in this appeal.

(2.) The respondent M/s Ashok Pipe Udyog are the agents of Eicher Tractors Limited, Faridabad at Charkhi Dadri. They established a inland letters of credit for Rs.2 lacs in favour of the aforesaid Eicher Tractors with the N. I. T. Branch, Faridabad of the Punjab National Bank. Subsequently they transferred the said transaction of the inland letters of credits the Neelam Bata Road branch of the said bank at Faridabad. In the complaint preferred by the respondent before the District Forum at Hissar the primal allegation was that the Neelam Bata Road branch had levied excess service charges on the transactions covered by the inland letters of credit to the tune of Rs.16,892.80 ps. upto December 1988. It was averred therein that earlier they had made a representation to the Customer Complaint Cell and other higher authorities of the Punjab National Bank and had simultaneously approached the local branch of the bank for the refund of excess charges. Since no redress was forthcoming, the respondent approached the Redressal Forum under the Act.

(3.) In their reply to the complaint before the District Forum, the appellant took up a number of preliminary objections to which reference is now unnecessary, since they have not been pressed in this appeal. . On merits the appellant took up the stand that originally the inland letter of credit was open at N. I. T. Branch of the bank and subsequently on the request of the complainant the same was that on a comprehensive statement of accounts (which were enclosed with the reply) far from there being any excess charges levied on the complainant a sum of Rs.8.546.64 P was due to the bank for because the service charges had been erroniously levied at a lesser rate. Whilst repudiating any liability the appellant bank made a counter claim that the aforesaid sum of Rs.8,546.64 P which had been undercharged with 17% interest thereon should be directed to be paid to the bank. In the replication the complainant-respondent however, reiterated theirstand.