UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. SURANA BANGLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the common order dated 15.10.1999 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai whereby" appellants/opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 9,61,195 towards interest and Rs. 25,000 towards loss of reputation in Complaint Case No. 21/98, Rs. 4,40,428 being the maturity value of FDR of the amount of Rs. 3,10,000 as an 22.11.1997 with 13% interest and cost of Rs. 20,000 in Complaint Case No. 22/98 to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to both the appeals lie in a narrow compass. Respondent is a manufacturer, exporter and importer of plastic, aluminium, brass bangles, imitation jewellery and handicraft articles and was having a current account with Kalbadevi branch of appellant bank. Remittance of US $ 1,00,000 equivalent to Rs. 31.31 lakhs in Indian Currency received from M.K.B. of Singapore was credited in that current account under certificate of Foreign Inward Remittance on 7.10.1993. Respondent exported goods from time to time against the said remittance which fact was confirmed by Foreign Exchange branch of the appellant on 26.10.1993, 17.11.1993, 10.12.1993, 23.12.1993, 10.1.1994 and 18.1.1994. It was alleged that by the letter dated 6.6.1994 appellant bank informed the respondent that above remittance did not pertain to it but to M/s. D.L. Tanumal Pvt. Ltd. Mistake in crediting remittance to respondent's account was stated to have occurred on account of wrong generation of data in the Nostro Account. On persuasion of appellant, the respondent repaid the said amount in instalments by November, 1996. To secure the last instalment of US $ 10,000 the respondent gave FDR of Rs. 3,10,000 on 22.11.1995, the maturity value whereof was Rs. 4,40,428 as on 22.11.1997. This FDR had been renewed for a further period upto 2001. It was alleged that appellant bank claimed an amount of Rs. 9,61,195 towards interest for utilization of the said amount from 1993 till November, 1996 from the respondent' Thereupon Complaint Case Nos. 21/98 and 22/98 were filed by the respondent which were contested by the appellants. It was alleged that respondent is responsible for repaying the amount which was a mistaken credit in its current account. Respondent delayed repayment for 3/4 years utilized the money for business and was, thus, liable to pay interest.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that amount of Rs. 31.31 lakh then equivalent of US $ 1,00,000 received from M.K.B. of Singapore was credited in the current account of respondent on 7.10.1993 and respondent exported goods between 26.10.1993 to 18.1.1994 against that amount. It is also not in dispute that by the letter dated 6.6.1994 appellant bank intimated the respondent that said remittance actually pertaining to M/s. D.L. Tanumal Pvt. Ltd. by mistake was credited in its current account as a result of wrong generation of data in Nostro Acccount. In para No. 8 of Memo of Appeal(s), the respondent is shown to have paid US $ 10,000 on 17.11.1994, US $ 10,000 on 13.12.1994, US $ 10,000 on 12.1.1995, US $ 10,000 on 15.2.1995, US $ 10,000 on 16.3.2005, US$ 10,000 on 12.4.1995, US $ 9,985 on 6.6.1995, US$ 9,985 on 13.7.1995, US $ 9,985 on 16.8.1995 and US$ 9,980 on 29.11.1996, totaling US $ 99,935. It is admitted case of the parties that to secure payment of last instalment the respondent gave FDR of Rs. 3,10,000 on 22.11.1995, the maturity value where of was Rs. 4,40,428 as on 22.11.1997 to the appellant bank. In complaint case No. 22/98 the relief claimed was that the bank be directed to refund the maturity value of said FDR with interest and not to charge any interest as claimed by the Bank. Copy of the order dated 1.7.2002 in O.A. No. 1469/2000 passed by Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal filed by appellant on 7.7.2005 would show that an award of Rs. 12,05,397 with further interest had been/ passed ex parte against the respondent and its partners who failed to put in appearance despite being duly served with notices. During course of arguments, it was pointed out by Mr. Malhotra that the application filed for setting aside the award has been dismissed for default. Award has, thus, attained finality. Controversy between the parties in these appeals centers around the liability of respondent to pay interest of Rs. 9,61,195 for utilization of money mistakenly credited in its current account till the amount was repaid, entitlement of the respondent to Rs. 25,000 towards injury to reputation and Rs. 4,40,428 being the maturity value of FDR of Rs. 3,10,000 with interest.