9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent is a consumer u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. Whether there was a deficiency in service by the appellant bank. 3. Whether the claim was time-barred. 4. Whether the appellant bank was responsible for the loss due to exchange rate fluctuations and interest. 5. Whether the respondent had locus standi to file the complaint. Summary: Issue 1: Consumer Status The appellant contended that the respondent was not a consumer u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the bank's customer was a firm named M/s Javerilal & Sons, not the respondent individually. The Commission did not address this contention adequately, failing to clarify the respondent's standing to file the complaint. Issue 2: Deficiency in Service The respondent claimed that the appellant bank failed to execute specific instructions to realize export documents only against payment in U.S. Dollars, leading to a deficiency in service. The Commission found that the appellant bank was negligent in handling the consignment, resulting in the release of goods without realizing the export proceeds in U.S. Dollars. However, the Supreme Court held that the appellant bank had fulfilled its obligations by negotiating the documents through the foreign bank as per the agreement, and the inability to convert local currency to U.S. Dollars was due to Sudan Government's policy, not the bank's fault. Issue 3: Time-Barred Claim The appellant argued that the claim was time-barred as the transactions occurred between 1979 and 1981, and the complaint was filed in 1992. The Commission rejected this argument, citing ongoing pressure from the Reserve Bank of India for repatriation of export proceeds. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that a claim should be made within a reasonable time, typically three years as per the Limitation Act. The decade-long delay rendered the claim unreasonable and time-barred. Issue 4: Responsibility for Loss The respondent sought damages for the rupee equivalent of U.S.$ 22,538, interest of Rs. 52,816.76, and Rs. 97,482.19 for exchange rate fluctuations. The Commission awarded these amounts, but the Supreme Court found no deficiency in the appellant bank's service. The bank had acted per the agreement, and the loss was due to external factors beyond its control. Issue 5: Locus Standi The appellant questioned the respondent's locus standi, as the complaint was filed by an individual while the transactions involved a partnership firm. The Commission did not address this issue adequately. The Supreme Court noted the lack of clarity on whether the individual had the authority to file the complaint on behalf of the firm. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commission's order, and dismissed the complaint, citing the lack of deficiency in service, the time-barred nature of the claim, and the unclear locus standi of the respondent. No costs were awarded.
|
