J.S. GLOBAL Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant/Appellant firm has filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 373/1998 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the complaint has directed the Respondent Bank to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the Appellant.

(2.) Appellant was maintaining a current Account No. 335730 with the Respondent Bank and was availing its services for negotiating the documents relating to the material exported by it to the Great Britain. On 28.4.1998, Appellant deposited two sets of documents with the Respondent Bank for presentation to the consignees' Bank at Germany. Respondent Bank handed over the said documents to the Courier, DHL Worldwide Express for onward delivery to the consignees' Bankers. The documents were lost in the transit by the Courier company and could not be presented to the consignees' bank as a result of which no payment was received by the Appellant. Since as per Foreign Exchange Rules, the account holder was required to produce the second set of documents to the bankers for collection of money from the foreign buyer, Respondent Bank vide letter dated 29.1.1998 requested the Appellant to furnish the second set of documents but instead of furnishing the second set of documents, Appellant approached the Reserve Bank of India, vide letter dated 12.1.2000, RBI advised the Appellant to submit a duplicate set of documents and to make sincere efforts by pressurizing the buyer for realization of outstanding export proceeds. However, only after lapse of two years. Appellant submitted the second set of documents but the foreign buyer refused to make the payment as the Letter of Credit had already expired. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission.

(3.) Respondent Bank, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement taking the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission as no consideration was paid by the Appellant for negotiating the documents and taking steps for collecting the export proceeds. On merits, it was pleaded that the Respondent was not under any obligation to give any credit in the current account of the Appellant unless the amount is received from the drawee of the bills; that the Respondent had no liability in case the documents are lost in transit since the documents were sent through courier at the risk of the Appellant; that despite the request of the Respondent Appellant did not furnish the duplicate set of the documents immediately for collection of the export proceeds; that after lapse of two years the Appellant supplied the duplicate set of the documents on advice of RBI but the buyer refused to make the payment as the LOC had already expired; that as the goods had already been delivered to the consignee, Appellant must have received the payment directly from the consignee; that the Respondent was not liable to pay the cost of the consignment due to no-delivery of documents.