MAQBOOL AHMAD ANSARI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31st March 2016 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ('the State Commission') in FA no. 1751 of 2015.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the appellant/complainant are that the appellant's firm is a proprietorship concern engaged in manufacturing and export of hand knitted woollen carpets. In December 2007 in response to a purchase order of overseas buyer, the appellant manufactured carpets and made arrangements for its shipment through commercial documents with invoice for US $ 1,10,596. 55 or INR Rs. 43,51,974. 24 bill of lading and bill of exchange. All the said documents were sent through the banker of the firm, i. e. , Bank of Baroda, Niryat Bhavan, Bhadohi where the appellant's firm was having a current account and EEFC Account. It was alleged that the respondent's bank sent the said documents to the consignee bank the Meridian Bank with the following instructions:

(3.) In the year 2008, on an enquiry it was found that the amount of proceeds had not been credited to the appellant's account but the consignment had been released against the original bill of lading. For the said act, the respondent Bank had served legal notice on the Meridian Bank and Meridian Bank has instituted a Declaratory Judgment Act against the respondent as also the petitioners before the District Court at Arizona asking for repudiation of their claim against the importer and its Banker. It was further alleged that the settlement agreement was arrived at between Bank of Baroda and Meridian Bank effective from 30. 04. 2010 for US $36,000 or INR Rs. 16. 20 lakh against the claim of US $ 1,10,596. 55 or INR Rs. 43,43,650. 14. Hence, it was alleged that the respondent had committed deficiency of service by arriving at a settlement despite the instruction of the appellant not to settle the matter for less than US $ 75,298. , due to which the appellant's firm had sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 27,23,650. 14. Hence, the appellant filed the consumer complaint no. 53 of 2011 before the State Commission seeking award of Rs. 68,44,929/- (including compensation for mental agony and litigation cost) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till final decision.