9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he complaint filed by the first respondent is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts liability to pay proceeds of certain bill dated 7-10-1988 which had fallen due for payment on 14-3-1989, payment of which was guaranteed under its guarantee letter No. 91037668 for 55,000. Notices to the bank were sent by advocate for the first respondent claiming the amount under the bank guarantee. Since no reply had been received from the Skopbank regarding Rs. 55,000, it appears, the matter rested at that. Bank was, however, told by a telex message dated 12-4-1990 from Skopbank that it had paid on 11-4-1990, Rs. 55,000 under its guarantee No. 2072002002 and that payment had been transferred according to Dany Dairy and Food Engineers Ltd.'s order to Grindlays Bank ANZ in New Delhi. Skopbank was informed by telex message dated 19-4-1990 from the Central Office of the bank that the payment of GBP Rs. 55,000 had not so far been received by the Grindlays Bank ANZ. Skopbank was requested to give instructions to Grindlays Bank ANZ for payment of the claim amount of Rs. 55,000 to the Saharanpur Branch of the Bank in the account of Dany Dairy and Food Engineers Ltd. On 24-4-1990 Area Manager of the first respondent wrote to the bank about the discussions he had with the officers of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the RBI took time to grant permission to remit the amount under the bank guarantee in foreign exchange under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Reference has been made to sections 8, 9 and 24 of FERA to support the submission that the bank could not have of its own remitted the amount under bank guarantee in foreign exchange. National Commission itself modified the order of the State Commission, which had ordered the remittance of the amount of the bank guarantee in foreign exchange stating that the State Commission could order only payment in Indian currency and, thus, arrived at the figure of Rs. 3,01,103. It may be noticed that by virtue of section 18 which prescribes procedure applicable to State Commission, section 14 has been made applicable. Under section 14 when District Forum is satisfied that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more following things, namely,-- "(d)to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party." 8. In Consumer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It signifies some detriment or depreviation or damage. Injury too means any damages or wrong. It means "invasion of any legally protected interest of another". Thus the provisions of section 14(1)(d) are attracted if the person from whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages. In other words, loss or injury, if any, must flow from negligence. Mere loss or injury without negligence is not contemplated by this section. The Bank has not been found to be negligent in discharge of its duties. Therefore, even if any loss or damage was caused to any depositor but it was not caused due to negligence of Bank then no claim of damages under the Act was maintainable." 9. Considering the stand taken by the bank and the statement of law as spelled out in the aforesaid judgment it would be thus seen that there has not been any deficiency in service provided by the bank and in our view National Commission and the State Commission were wrong in coming to the contrary conclusion. We would, however, like to point out that when it is a question of remittance of foreign exchange and permission of the RBI is req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween rupees five twenty lakhs but there is no such provision as contained in sub-section (2) of section 11 applicable to State Commission. Section 18 does not make provision of sub-section (2) of section 11 applicable to the State Commission. Each State has its own State Commission. There is purpose for it. First appeal of the District Forum situated within the State lies to the State Commission and then State Commission can take cognizance of the dispute arising within that State. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that dispute arising in one State could be taken cognizance by State Commission of other State. We have to have purposive interpretation of the provisions and we have to hold that similar provisions as contained in sub-section (2) of section 11 with modifications as may be necessary, shall be applicable to the State Commission. In fact these are the basic provisions conferring territorial jurisdiction on a Tribunal otherwise it will lead to absurd situations. We must read into section 17 the same provisions as contained in sub-section (2) of section 11 subject to such modifications as may be applicable to a State Commission. It may also be noticed that under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
