MIRIYALA KRISHNAIAH Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-5-1
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 02,2003

Miriyala Krishnaiah Appellant
VERSUS
Branch Manager, SBI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE complainant in C.D. No. 206/2002 on the file of District Forum, Nellore is the appellant. His case is that he handed over shipping documents relating to export of 10.5 tons of Mica Powder and shipped to Lahavra (France) on 13.6.2001, by œM.V. Heimar J.V. 59 which left the port of Madras on 13.6.2001 for collection of 3150 U.S. Dollars from the foreign buyer œSanti Cobin Quartz, Service Archats, 108 Avenue Carnet, 77140 St. Pierrs Las Nemours, France . The opposite party accepted to deliver the documents to the foreign buyer by collecting the amount of 3150 U.S. Dollars. Curiously the opposite party delayed the delivery of the document and finally returned the same to the complainant with a lame excuse on 27.7.2001 taking 39 days for returning the document. Even the name of the Banker of the buyer is not noted in the document which is most unusual and exceptional. Therefore, the complainant approached the District Forum for the loss sustained by him. The District Forum found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the complainant who is a customer of the opposite party bank handed over the shipping documents. According to the complainant he requested the opposite party to deduct the collection charges for which the latter accepted and collected the complete set of shipping documents for delivery to the foreign buyer and for collection of the value of the Mica powder, i.e., 3150 U.S. Dollars. However the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party instead of delivery the documents promptly, delayed the matter unusually and all returned the papers on 27.7.2001 after a delay of 39 days without collecting the amount on the ground that the name of Banker of the buyer of the complainant is not mentioned.
(3.) IN the counter filed by the opposite party it is stated that it is not a foreign exchange Bank and it wont undertake dealings concerning foreign exchange matters and that State Bank of India, Sriharikota is only the branch which deals with these matte in Nellore District. In fact the opposite party Bank initially resisted to undertake the assignment and informed the complainant to contact the branch at Sriharikota but the complainant insisted to undertake the work as he is not having an account with Sriharikota branch. Therefore, the opposite party accepted the papers, forwarded the same to S.B.I., Sriharikota for onward transmission to the Bank at France for collection. The opposite party made inquiries from time -to -time and finally received the documents from France with an endorsement that the foreign buyers bank name was not indicated in the shipping papers and as such returned the papers to Sriharikota branch from whom the papers were received the opposite party who in turn informed the same to the complainant. As the complainant could not pass on the information and submit the papers, there is no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum accepted the version of the opposite party. Hence the appeal. The complainant knows that the opposite party does not have foreign exchange wing in their branch. It is only Sriharikota branch that deals with these matters. In fact the opposite party branch has informed the same to the complainant. But the complainant insisted that they should undertake the assignment by sending the documents to Sriharikota branch. Further it is the complainant that did not give the Bankers name of the foreign buyer. Therefore, though the papers were sent promptly by the opposite party as well as the Sriharikota branch, they were not honoured at France. Therefore, there is deficiency on the part of the complainant by not furnishing the required information and if the papers are returned from France there is nothing which could be done by the opposite party except to hand over the same to the complainant. This is what done by the opposite party. Therefore, agreeing with the District Forum we do not find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.