BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PADMAKAR GOVIND BHASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.2.2015 passed in CC No. 198 of 2000 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai whereby the State Commission disposed of the complaint by directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 29.04.2000.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant is the Proprietor of M/s FAN Service Metallurgical Laboratory. For the upgradation of his business, he planned to buy Direct Reading Emission Spectrometer (DRES) from M/s Belec, manufactured in Germany. The complainant approached the officials of OP i.e. Bank of Maharashtra, Nashik (City Branch) in view of financial assistance and discussed the viability of the said project. The OP assured for financial assistance and gave a green signal for the remittance of advance amount equivalent to 10% of the cost of the instrument to M/s Belec, Germany against the proforma invoice dated 27.3.98. Accordingly, the complainant made remittance of 10% of the amount (i.e. Rs. 3.3 lakhs) through OP/Bank and also paid the necessary charges of OP for the said services. The OP assured to open Letter of Credit (LC) through its Bank and grant the loan within short period to fulfil the contractual obligations between the complainant and M/s Belec, Germany. The complainant wanted loan to purchase DRES worth of Rs. 40 lakh from M/s Belec, Germany through their Indian representative, M/s Scientific Instrument Services. However, OP/Bank informed orally to the complainant that he may approach Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) or some other bank for the loan and submit the sanction letter to the OP/Bank for the purpose of opening LC through OP/Bank. Thus, OP wasted the valuable time of four months to inform the complainant, thus, due to negligent conduct of OP/bank, the complainant suffered financial loss. It was alleged that the OP should have informed complainant about the conditions of opening LC during initial discussion, the OP delayed to convey its decision of non-sanction of loan. Thus, it was deficiency in service from the OP/Bank.

(3.) For the alleged deficiency and loss suffered by the complainant, a complaint was filed before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, 'the State Commission') claiming a compensation of Rs.19 lakhs under different heads.