SANDEEP INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint, the complainant has alleged deficiency in the service of State Bank of India, New Delhi.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that Sandeep Industries are manufacturing plastic parts at Nagpur having its main Office at Bombay. The complainant Sandeep Industries had business dealings with M/s. S. N. Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Bharat Electrical Industries at New Delhi since the year 1986. The complainant further alleged that during the course of the business, the complainant used to forward usance and hundies according to their terms and conditions of business. It is further alleged that the complainant's bankers were State Bank of Indore at Bombay who had hired the services of opposite party, the State Bank of India, New Delhi, the opposite party. It has been alleged that the complainant's banker had informed the opposite party that documents are to be accepted by the S. N. Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Bharat Electrical complainant's account with State Bank of Indore after 60 days from the date of hundi. According to the complainant, the aforesaid practice was being followed since 1986 till March, 1988 and that the departure was made by the opposite party for the first time in 1988. It is further alleged that the Office of the State Bank of India is situated in the house of Managing Director of S. N. Home Appliances and Partner of Bharat Electrical Industry. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party did not collect the amount of Hundies for Rs.4,72,575.16 from S. N. Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.3,15,070.29 from Bharat Electrical Industry, respectively. It is therefore, alleged that the opposite party was negligent in its service to be rendered to the complainant through their Agent, State Bank of Indore as a result of which the complainant is put to a financial loss of the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,87,645.45. The complainant has, therefore, claimed the aforesaid amount as compensation together with interest.

(3.) A notice was sent to the opposite party with a direction to file the written version. The opposite party, the State Bank of India filed a preliminary objection raising the questions of jurisdiction of this Commission and also denied the claim of the complainant. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits and the documents on record.