PARDES DEHYDRATION COMPANY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant is a partnership firm and is engaged in processing fruits and vegetables including garlic and onion in the form of flakes and powder by dehydration process. It is alleged to be export oriented manufacturing unit having its dealing in foreign countries. The Opponent No.1 is the Bank, Opponent No.2 is the International Banking Division and Opponent No.3 is the local branch at Rajkot. It is alleged that the complainant sold about 50 tones of garlic flakes to a Japanese buyer in the year 1990. He received repeat order for another lot of 50 tones and irrevocable letter of credit dated 30.5.90 for US $ 60,000 was sent in favour of the complainant. The complainant has further averred that the said buyer sent the letter of credit to the Opponent No.2 Bank and the complainant got intimation by telex from the buyer saying that the letter of credit was opened and same was sent by its bankers Mitsui Taiyo Kobe Bank, Kokyo, Japan. The complainant approached Opponent No.2 Bank at Ahmedabad branch and made enquiries for about three four times during the last week of May 1990. He was informed that the letter of credit was received by the Bank but was misplaced and efforts were afoot to search it out However letter of credit was not sent by Opponent No.2 Bank and the complainant was eager to get the letter of credit so that he can get raw material from the market and manage for production to meet with such huge order. The complainant therefore sent a communication on 21.6.90 to Opponent No.2 Bank and requested to send the said letter of credit through the Opponent No.3 at Rajkot. Thereafter there is a correspondence and he went personally to Ahmedabad and was alleged to have been informed that the letter of credit was not traceable and advised to ask the Japanese buyer to retransmit the letter of credit. He further informed him that a telex was sent by the Bank on 3.7.90 to the Japanese Bank at Tokyo informing, that the original letter of credit was lost. It is further alleged that the opening bank retransmitted the letter of credit on 5.7.90 and intimation to that effect was received by telex by the complainant. The complainant again approached Opponent No.2 and enquired about the said retransmitted letter of credit on 8.7.90. He was informed that the bank has received the letter of credit and same will be sent by post to the complainant. The complainant wailed till 12.7.90 and made a telephonic enquiry by STD with the Opponent No.2 since the letter of credit was not received. He was told that the letter of credit will be sent by post. The letter of credit having not been received, the complainant tried his level best with the local post office as well as Japanese buyer complaining about non-receipt of letter of credit. Ultimately the Opponent No.3 bank sent an advice dated 30.7.90 to the complainant staling that a sum of Rs.26/- was debited to the complainant's account being its commission. The letter of credit was received by the complainant alongwith the advice on 30.7.90. The allegation of the complainant is that opponent No.2 bank did not exercise care and caution and lost the letter of credit and did not give proper and prompt reply to the enquiries made by the complainant. When the letter of credit was retransmitted same was negligently sent to its Deesa Branch which in turn was diverted to the Opponent No.3 bank which delivered the same to the complainant on 30.7.90. The letter of credit in question was valid for two months and two months had already gone due to negligence on the part of Opponent No.2. As a consequence it was not possible to procure garlics and manufacture the ordered goods as the price of garlic had already gone up. The delivery period was also delayed. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint with the banking authority. The complainant has claimed Rs.5 lakhs as damages due to the sheer and gross negligence on the part of the Opponent No.2 Bank:

(2.) It appears that the complainant had suggested some formula which was rejected by the Bank. The complainant ultimately has claimed Rs.2.50 lakhs as loss by way of loss of profits, Rs.10,000/- by way of loss incurred by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for having suffered agony and mental torture. In this way he has claimed Rs.3,10 lakhs as monetary damages.

(3.) In reply to the complaint the Opponent No.2 in para 8 has stated that the letter of credit was sent to Deesa by mistake but a message was sent to the complainant by telephone on 6.7.90 to the effect that repeated message from issuing bank was received. According to the opponent this telephone message itself was enough and sufficient for the complainant if he wanted to avail of the letter of credit and do his business as per contract. They have also stated that the complainant was also informed of retransmitted letter of credit by the Japanese importer by telex of 16.7.90. They have further submitted that the letter of credit was extended till January 1991 and the complainant could have executed the order but he chose not to do so. The underlying is that the complainant had no sufficient funds to execute the order. The Bank has further stated that the complainant has received financial facility from Bank of India, Gondal branch but it was not able to pay up that and the Bank has filed a suit for recovery of outstanding against the complainant, similarly the complainant had defaulted to repay the O. D. over TDR from Union Bank of India and the Bank has instituted a legal proceedings against the complainant. Other instances have also been cited to show that the complainant could not execute the order on account of litigations pending against him and financial problems and has filed a totally false, frivolous and exaggerated complaint against the Bank.