AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NOBODY appears for the complainant though the matter was called for the second time. On 19.2.2002, we had required the complainant to file rejoinder to the written version of the opposite party. This has not been done.
IN the written version an objection has been taken that there was no privity of contract between complainant and the opposite party. IN the complaint there is a claim for Rs. 89,34,718.90, which is stated to be equivalent to US $ 249,503.48 calculated at the exchange rate of Rs. 35.81 per Dollar. Complainant is based in Singapore. He has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As to how this deficiency in service arose, his case is that he has his accounts with the Indian Bank, Singapore, who is the collecting and remitting bank and the Indian Bank sent to the opposite party relevant documents for presentation to the buyer in India. The opposite party failed in its duty. It is not clear as to how the opposite party could be guilty of deficiency in service. It is not the bank of the complainant and there is no consideration which passed through the complainant to the opposite party to hold the opposite party guilty of negligence and thus deficiency in service. This complaint fails and it is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Complaint dismissed with costs.