H R DARVESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issuance of fake foreign currency by Punjab National Bank; use thereof in good faith by the complainants abroad; subsequent detection of the same by the authorities abroad; concommitant humiliation of the 'consumers' and later on, realising the currency to be fake; issuance of the genuine currency instead and the action taken under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , in short, is the subject matter of the present complaint.

(2.) Complainant-1 H. R. Darvesh is the husband of Sm. Shil Darvesh and father of Rajan Sharma, complainants-2 and 3 respectively. The facts constituting the fabric of the complaint, as depicted therein are summarised as under:-

(3.) On notice being issued, the respondentsbank has put forth its version in the written statement. The allegations of the respondent-Bank are that complainant-1 is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the COPRA' in brief ). The dollars were given to complainants-2 and 3. The complaint involves complex questions of highly disputed facts and law. It requires recording and examination of elaborate and voluminous evidence which cannot be properly done in the consumer jurisdiction of this Commission. Such matters can be determined satisfactorily by the Civil Court. The complainants have not come to the Commission clean hands and they have suppressed the material facts. Violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is attributed to them. Complainants-2 and 3 had applied for foreign currency under the FTS meant for pleasure trip only, but they used the foreign exchange for business purpose. They are guilty of giving false declaration at the time of availing of FTS facility. They applied to the Bank for 500 US Dollars each for having pleasure trip from Delhi to Bangkok-Singapore-Bangkok-Delhi through Thai Air Lines, under the FTS facility under the scheme which is available once in three calendar years and cannot be combined with the visit on export promotion and other business grounds. The complainants landed in India on 16-10-1992. Till 28-10-1992 complainant-1 had nothing to complain against the respondent-Bank. It is admitted that after 18-10-92 complainant-1 got the information from Jagmohan Singh that the dollars given by the complainants to Hilton International Bangkok were refused by Siam Commercial Bank, Bangkok. On 28-10-1992 the respondent-Bank asked him to make an application in writing which he did on 2-11-1992. The Bank took immediate action and after verification and permission from Reserve Bank of India made the payment. There was absolutely no negligence on its part. In fact, the dollar could not be detected as counterfeit even by Siam Commercial Bank, Bangkok immediately on presentation. The counterfeit Dollars were so meticulously prepared that even the respondent-Bank could not detect in the ordinary course of business. The Bank took all the care and caution, as a prudent man, but still "to err is human" dictum could not be ruled out. The complainants never complained of selling their alleged belongings to defray the necessary expenses abroad. It is an afterthought. Conversion of foreign exchange from pleasure trip to business purpose is a serious offence. The respondent-Bank is not guilty of any deficient service. It was a bona fide mistake which was not detected in the course of business in spite of taking due care and caution which a prudent man would take. The damages have not been determined by the complainants. The Bank has placed on record photostat copies of correspondence Annexures R1 to R3.