INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD Vs. AJAY S JAJODIA
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2013-10-2
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 24,2013

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Ajay S Jajodia Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BEING aggrieved by the majority judgement of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at South Mumbai partly allowing complaint no.CC/04/277, opponent bank has preferred this appeal.
(2.)FACTS which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: -
M/s.Win Exports was a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of import and export. During the year 1995 -96, complainant's firm acquired foreign exchange worth $4,25,000 US dollors from the opponent bank for import of some chemicals. The opponent bank debited a sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000/ - towards this foreign exchange. The consignment was received and got cleared from the customs by the complainant on payment of necessary dues. Bills of entry were drawn in quadruplet and submitted to the opponent bank in 1995 -96 itself, as proof of import of the chemicals. It was the duty of the opponent bank to forward the bills of entry to the Reserve Bank of India. Since the opponent bank did not comply, Reserve Bank of India referred the matter to the Enforcement Directorate. Enforcement Directorate asked the opponent bank about the transaction and the bank falsely informed the Directorate that it had not received the bills of entry. F.E.R.A. Authorities then initiated proceedings against the complainant. Ultimately, authorities found that the opponent bank wrote to the Enforcement Directorate on 15th and 16th September 2003 confirming that the complainant had submitted the relevant bills of entry. The Enforcement Directorate eventually dropped the proceedings against the complainant on 12/12/2003. The complainant was however required to pay a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs towards two non compliances, which too was set aside by the appellate tribunal by order dated 29/09/2004.

(3.)ACCORDING to the complainant all this resulted in considerable loss to the complainant's firm, which was forced to stop doing business and had to be ultimately wound up. The complainant had to suffer mental agony, harassment and even tarnishing of his image in the business circle.
A notice was issued to the opponent bank which at that time was the United Western Bank Ltd. It contested the proceeding contending that the complainant was not a 'consumer', since the transaction was one for 'commercial purpose'. It was also contended that the grievance, if any, of the complainant were against Enforcement Directorate and not against the bank. The bank denied allegations of the complainant and prayed for framing preliminary issue on tenability of the complaint.

;


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