ORDER
D.F. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this complaint, the complainant has claimed Rs. 15,41,60,780/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The statement of claims are mentioned under various heads :
A. Non-realisation of Export Bill dated 1.3.1992
2. The above export bill was submitted to the Bank (opposite party No. 1) for delivering, to the buyer in Muscat (Oman) against payment. The Bank (opposite party No. 1) through its correspondence Bank delivered the export bill without payment. Due to the negligence and deficiency by the Bank (opposite party No. 1), the, amount could not be realised and is thus payable by the Bank (opposite party No. 1) to the complainant company along with the interest which the Bank was liable to pay to the complainant and the said payment was not paid in spite of several requests and reminders and the details of the payment are given as under :
Bill amount US $ 16500.00 Interest till date US $ 80262.00 Total US $ 96762.00 Indian Rupees @ 48/- Rs. 46,44,576.00 (A)
3. The Investigation Officer appointed by the Bank (opposite party No. 2) held that the Bank (opposite party No. 1) is responsible for the deficiency at in their investigation report dated 9.12.1995 which has clearly established that the Bank always remained negligent and the consumer suffered losses because of the deficiency of the services of Bank (opposite party No. 1).
B. Unlawful reversal of Export Bill No. 92/ N/630043 dated 16.3,1993 amounting to US $ 26974.84
4. The above export bill was submitted to the Bank (opposite party No 1) under the letter of Credit. The Bank (opposite party No. 1) is bound to recover the amount from the L/C opening Bank. The opposite party No. 1 has not recovered the above amount due to the negligence committed by them, and wrongly debited the amount to the account of complainant company.
5. The Investigation Officer of the Bank (opposite party No. 2) in his report dated 912.1995 clearly held that the branch (opposite party No. 1) has violated exchange control regulations and also held that such recovery of the amount from the complainant company Without specific reason. The Bank (opposite party No. 1) also accepted its violation in its letter ref. No. 438 dated 28.3.1995 (Annexure C-1) addressed to the AGM, SBI, Chandigarh. The opposite parties are liable to pay the following amount to the complainant company.
6. Non-collection of payments as mentioned above is clearly due to the negligence of the opposite party No. 1 and unauthorisly debiting the said amount to the account of the complainant forcibly amounts to unfair trade practice and thus the Bank is liable to refund the “said amount to the complainant along with interest.
C. Unlawful debit of Short Remittance Receipt due to negligence of the Bank in respect of export bills ref. No. 92/N/630017 and 92/N/630020 for US $ 2225.00 and US $ 4515.00
7. In this case, the Investigation Officer of the Bank (opposite party No. 2) in his report dated 9.12.1995 held that the short remittance from the foreign Bank is due to negligence of the Bank (opposite party No. 1) and the amount debited to the company’s account is against the instruction and amounts to deficiency of services. Negligence of the opposite party No. 1 is clearly established. The opposite parties are liable to pay the following amount to complainant company along with interest.
D. Unlawful reversal of Export Bill No. 94/D/ 630702 for US $ 2,79,989,00
8. The export bill was delivered by the Bank (opposite party No. 1) through its corresponding/advising Bank in violation of instructions of the complainant. The Bank (opposite party No. 1) vide letter dated 28th March, 1998 clearly accepted the deficiency stating that as per article 1 of the publication No. 322 on documentary collection, the advising Bank is liable for any deviation. It is proved that the amount of export bill was not collected due to the deficiency of the Bank (opposite party No. 1) and Bank (opposite party No. 1) has illegally debited this amount to the complainant company’s account. The Bank (opposite party No. 1) is liable for the payment along with interest and all other losses suffered by the complainant due to this negligence of the Bank (opposite party No. 1). The opposite parties are liable to pay the following amount as they have committed the deficiency in services and brech of trust.
9. The above deficiency and violation of instruction of the Bank (opposite party No, 1) by its correspondent Bank is admitted by the Bank (opposite party No. 1) vide its letter dated 7.12.1994 addressed to CGM (IB), SBI, Mumbai and vide letter dated 25,1.1995, 28.3.1995, 15.4.1995 addressed to GM, SBI, FD, Calcutta. The Bank (opposite party No. 1) also clearly admitted that its correspondent Banks are liable for the payment of above export bill as they have not complied with the negotiating Bank instructions (opposite party No. 1) thereby violated Article 1 of ICC publication No. 322 on documentary collections.
(Annexure C-3, 4,1, 5)
E. Non-application of ruling exchange rate and wrong application of interest rate on our export bill during the years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and non-application of forward rates of usance bill as per bank instructions.
10. The Investigation Officer in his report dated 9.12.1995 held that in all the cases, which relates to the 1992-94 the relevant files, correspondence, documents are not available with the branch (opposite party No. 1). The branch (opposite party No. 1) did not keep track of outstanding export bill, overlooked exchange control regulations and bank extent instructions relating to forex business. The opposite parties are liable to pay the following amount to the complainant company which complainant suffered due to the negligence of the Bank, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of services which complainant hired against charges.
11. The company is pursuing the matter regularly at the branch level, L.H.O., Chandigarh and the higher authorities at Mumbai. The Bank has accepted the deficiencies in principle, but delaying the matter to save the skin of their employees or the reason best known to the Bank.
F. The unfortunate turn of events took place
in the month and year of April, 1999 when
complainant company received an export order of
white Basmati rice from STC, Mauritius for
quantity of 15,000 MT approximately value of Rs.
32.00 crore. The export order was made obligatory
to be performed and executed within a period of
twelve months in part consignment against Letter
of Credit. A performance guarantee against the
contract was also established through (opposite
party No. 1). Since STC Mauritius opened the
Letter of Credit for export of first consignment of
5,000 MT plus 10% out of total order which
complainant company executed and exported
5,475 MT of Basmati rice to STC, Mauritius. The
balance order could not be executed because STC,
Mauritius has not opened the Letter of Credit for
the balance quantity under the contract and there
was a dispute regarding encashment of the bank
guarantee whfch was declared null and void by
opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 3.5.2000 and
3.6.2000. (Annexure C 6, 7)
12. Circumstances compelled complainant company to file a suit for injunction restraining opposite party No. 1 and their associates not to encash the bank guarantee and the learned Trial Court in Suit No. 188/2000 on 28.6.2000 restrained all parties concerned not to encash or pay any amount against the bank guarantee and the restrain order was confirmed vide order dated 17.7.2000 against opposite party No. 1. In violation of Court order, opposite party’s associate Bank SB International, Mauritius released the funds to STC, Mauritius.
13. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and their associate Bank’s acts and conduct with regard to the banking services with the customer can be seen in the findings passed by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 17.7.2000. Due to negligence committed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, the complainant company suffered losses.
14. That since opposite party No. 1 acted in violation of the Court order, circumstances compelled complainant company to take out contempt proceedings, which annoyed opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The opposite party No. 1 had admittedly started threatening the complainant company. The complainant company received first blow from opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 18.8.2000 stating that the bank guarantee facilities are withdrawn. This action was arbitrary and against the norms of sound banking practice with a mala fide intention to further damaging the export business of complainant company; as without having bank guarantee facilities, complainant company could not participate in the international tenders floated in global market for import/export business of rice. This arbitrary action of the opposite parties put the complainant company in losses of more than Rs. 3 crores, which opposite parties are liable to pay along with the interest till the date of payment.
(Annexure C/8)
15. That the second blow received by complainant company from the opposite party No. 1, vide letter dated 21.6.2001 (Annexure C/9) arbitrarily reducing the credit facilities is a blackmailing, negligence and deficiency of services on the part of opposite parties with a motive to perish the business of complainant company and to create economic pressure and duress in a running trade. Though complainant company was cooperating with the opposite parties throughout as the complainant company was fighting for its survival. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the business loss and interest loss to complainant company amounting to Rs. 200 lacs along with further interest till the date of settlement, which complainant has actually suffered due to the negligence of the Bank and such acts of the Bank amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and details of losses suffered are detailed below :
(Annexure C/9)
Due to arbitrarily reduction of credit facilities by the opposite parties, turnover loss to the complainant company Rs. 21.60 crore, as the complainant company’s turnover on 31.3.2001 was Rs. 31.62 crore whereas as per provisional balance sheet dated 31.3.20.00, the company turnover becomes Rs. 10.00 crore. And turnover loss of Rs. 21.60 crore to the company due to the negligence of the opposite party, resulting financial loss amounting to Rs. 2.00 lacs to the complainant company.
Rs. 2,00,00,000.00 (G)
16. That complainant company received an export order of 10,000 MT non Basmati rice from a company in London. The opposite party No. 1 confirmed vide letter dated 24.12.2001 (Annexure-21) that (opposite party No. 1) will provide the funds against the Letter of Credit against the assurance of opposite party No. 1 complainant company deposited the original Letter of Credit No. 200-LC-439-10-2000-863 amounting to US $ 2 millions (Approx Rs. 10 crore) with opposite party No. 1. With the mala fide intentions against the banking norms, neither the opposite party No. 1 released the funds against the Letter of Credit nor returned the original Letter of Credit and the same had expired in the custody of opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 in conspiracy with opposite party No. 2 committed the deficiency in services. Due to this act of opposite party No. 1 the country has suffered a huge foreign exchange loss and the complainant company suffered business loss of Rs. 10 crores and financial loss of Rs. 2.5 crores. Due to non-fulfilment of export under the L/C, the buyer (L/C opening company) demanded claims and damages amounting to Rs. 115 lacs vide their fax message dated 15.2.2002 (Annexure 23). The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 3.65 crore to complainant company along with the interest and penal interest till the date of settlement.
17. That on 31.3.2001, opposite party No. 1 had debited amount of Rs. 15,84,333.00 to the account of complainant company with a mala fide and revengeful attitude on account of penal interest. This amount had been arbitrarily debited by opposite party No. 1 in connivance with the opposite party No. 2 only to harass and put further pen wary damage to the complainant company. The amount Rs. 15,84,333.00 was debited by the opposite party No. 1, in haste, with a revengeful attitude which tantamounts arbitrary to the deficiency of services. The. amount payable by the opposite parties with interest from the date of debit and till the date of settlement. Rs. 15,84,333.00 (I)
18. That opposite parties are also liable to compensate and pay the complainant company for mental agony, business loss, prestige assassination loss along with the above detailed claims/losses.
19. On the face of it such a case would require voluminous evidence. Considering the complex question of law it is not possible for us to decide in our summary jurisdiction. In fact, we are supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SYNCO Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors. In the circumstances, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction and reject the complaint, This, however, will not come in the way of the complainant to approach the Civil Court or any other Forum for resolving to his claim. Original Petition is dismissed.