AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant which is a Corporate entity registered under the Indian Companies Act has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the O.Ps. alleging deficiencies against them for discontinuation of certain Banking facility availed by it in the Current Account with O.P. Branch at Malad. (Hereinafter for brevity''s sake complainant is referred to as "Complainant" and respondent as "Bank").
IT is the case of the complainant that they are engaged in commercial activity of exporting engineering items, etc. to foreign countries. The complainant, opened somewhere in 1983 Current Account No. 125 with the branch of O.P. No. 1 at Malad.
It is the case of the complainant that it started operating the said account by negotiating Letter of Credit to the Overseas Branch of the Bank and according to the complainant, in April 1993 to 20th March, 1995 the complainant negotiated various commercial documents by means of Letter of Credits established by its customers. It is, therefore, pleaded that the Bank extended the complainant Export Bills Discounting Facility.
THE complainant alleges that although till October, 1994, the operation of the account went on smoothly, abruptly in the month of March 1995, it has discontinued the export discounting facility without any reason and justification and it is to be stated that alleging such abrupt discontinuation of the said export bill discounting facility as constituted deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in banking business resulting loss of business, that this complaint has been filed. It is to be stated that in the major part of the complaint, the complainant has devoted in setting out certain instances of exchange of words with the Officer of the Bank in particular O.P. No. 3 and Director of the complainant one Mr. Raju Desai leading to lodging of the complaint, correspondence of the issue, etc.
IT is to be stated that the complainant has made certain allegations against the officials including O.P. No. 3 of the Bank to say that they behaved in most arrogant and humiliating manner with Mr. Raju Desai, its Director. However, sum and substance of the grievance of the complainant is of dicontinuation of export discount facility granted to it. The complainant has annexed as Annexure to the complaint the correspondence that came to be exchanged.
O.P. No. 3 has filed Written Statements, who, as stated, has been targeted by the complainant having current account with the Malad Branch of the Bank pointing out that the Malad Branch had no facility of processing and negotiating discounting facility of Bills as claimed as such was not authorised to deal with FOREX business and, therefore, the stand of the complainant about the grant or existence of export discount facility to the complainant as alleged did not arise at all and in fact such facility was never sanctioned or made available to the complainant.
IT is also hinted that the current account of the complainant was never used or for that matter allowed to be used for any business dealings related to its export bills discounting facility, since such banking operation is not permissible to the Current Account Holder. The O.P. Bank has further pleaded that the complainant had negotiated certain transactions being independent one through Letter of Credit through Overseas branch of the Bank at Vile Parle and those transactions which were processed independently during the usual course of banking business.
The Written Statement of the O.P. Bank indicates and spells out that such negotiation was totally unaccounted to the operation of current account of the complainant with the Bank. It is further pointed out that negotiation of the Letter of Credit transaction-wise was done by the complainant through its Overseas Branch at Vile Parle in normal course of Banking business unconnected to its current account with the branch of the Bank at Malad and that O.Ps. were not granted any credit or debit for the same. Each transaction was independently processed and which is available to any one. It is particularly pleaded that since the complainant had his current account with the Bank at Malad, the Malad Branch had only forwarded certain documents of the complainant to its Branch at Vile Parle which were done as a matter of favour and indulgence and not that the complainant was entitled by right or otherwise under facility as such.
IT is specifically pleaded that no export discount facility was ever granted to the complainant as falsely contended and, therefore, its discontinuation or otherwise as claimed by the complainant would not arise. It is further pointed out that the complainant presented applications in the Head Office of the Bank on 6.1.1994 requesting for grant of certain export bills discounting facility which came to be rejected by letter dated 23.1.1995 being Exhibit ''D'' to the Complaint.
THE complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by it in the complaint. In the complaint one point will need a specific mention that the complainant had disputed about receipt of the letter dated 23.1.1995, copy whereof has been annexed as Exhibit ''D'' to the complaint. It is asserted that the said letter was delivered to the complainant much later. Following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the complainant proves that export bills discounting facility was granted to it by O.P. Bank and the same was illegally and wrongfully discontinued as alleged. (ii) Whether complainant proves that O.P. Bank is deficient in rendering services to the complainant by discontinuing the said export bills discounting facility. (iii) Whether complainant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs or for any other amount. (iv) What order. Our findings on the above points are as under : 1. No. 2. No. 3 & 4. Does not arise.
We will take up point Nos. 1 and 2 for consideration together to avoid overlapping of discussion.
IT is necessary to note that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that in the year 1993 or even soon thereafter the export bills discounting facility was ever granted to the complainant. IT is also not suggested by the complainant that prior to June 1994, the complainant had made any written application to the Bank for grant of said facility and for that matter Bank having granted the same.
IT is to be stated and it was rightly pointed out during the course of argument that O.P. Bank conducts and carries on banking business under the supervision and control of Reserve Bank of India. The banking activities of the Bank are subject to the Statutory Provisions and Rules viz., Reserve Bank of India Act and Banking Regulation Act. The nature of export bill discounting facility which the complainant is claiming involves foreign exchange and as such there has to be Resolution/decision of the Bank extending such facility to the party like the complainant. It is to be noted that it is not even the case of the complainant that export bill discounting facility as claimed by it was ever made available by the Bank by passing any resolution or otherwise.
On the contrary, in a letter dated 23.1.1995 by the Bank to the complainant, this is what is stated by it- Ref : F/60/725 Date 23.1.1995 To M/s. IVI Controls Pvt. Ltd., 9 A & B Wing, Samhita Warehousing Complex, Kurla-Andheri Road, Bombay-400072. Dear Sir, Ref : Your Application for various facilities Please refer to our letter No. F/60/500 dated the 18th October, 1994 We regret to inform you that your request for various loan facilities has been declined by our competent authorities. You may note accordingly. Further, you are advised to send your export bills on collection basis in future and no bill will be negotiated by us. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (S.S. Mishra) Branch Manager
It is to be stated that the complainant has annexed the said letter as Exhibit ''D'' to the complaint. However, it is stated that the said letter was delivered to him much later.
THE said contention of the complainant that the said letter was delivered to him later also does not appear to be true, since in its letter addressed to the Bank as a reply to letter dated 20.3.1995 of the Bank has stated to repeat "Final reply came from your branch on 23.1.1995 stating that the sanction of the export bills discounting facility was declined by the Competent Authority and we must send our export bill for collection and they will be negotiating our bills". The said letter is Exhibit ''I'' and annexed to the complaint by the complainant. In para 7 of the complaint, they have stated having replied the said letter of 20.3.1995. This communication falsifies the stand taken by the complainant at belated stage of the date of delivery of the said letter.
THE said letter of 23.1.1995 clearly clinches the issue whereby the Bank has advised the complainant and made it clear to forward the export bills on collection basis which could be procured in the normal course of its banking business. THE said letter also clearly shows that no facility as claimed by the complainant was granted and sanctioned to it, what is more, by the said letter, Bank has declined to grant to the complainant facility in question. It would thus be noticed that the complainant has not been able to prove that it was granted the facility by the Bank as claimed by it. It is further to be stated that the complainant had current account with it and in prayer (a) of the complaint it is clearly stated "illegal discontinuation of the facility availed by the complainant on the current account No. 125 with Malad Branch of the Bank". The Bank has made available current account statement of the complainant being Exhibit ''C'' to the written statement for the period in question and there is not a single entry to be noticed out either of debit or credit pertaining to the negotiations of bills under the said export bills discounting facility. This clearly shows, that no facility attached to the account was ever granted to the complainant so as to constitute deficiency in service, because of discontinuation or otherwise.
WHAT the complainant was allowed was to lodge every bill on collection basis. Therefore, stand taken by the Bank that complainant was allowed to lodge bills on collection basis only and not on negotiation basis also lends the credence from the fact that the current account of the complainant does not show any such transaction having taken place and this would further prove that the stand taken by the Bank that no facility of the type claimed by the complainant was ever granted to it.
SINCE the complainant fails to establish about the availability of the export bills discounting facility in question, there is no question of abrupt discontinuation constituting deficiency in service as asserted. Points 1 and 2 herein stand answered negatively. SINCE the complainant fails on the main points, consequently he also fails in the complaint. Hence the order. ORDER 1. Complaint stands dismissed. 2. No order as to cost. 3. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.
Complaint dismissed.