N.KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant Tr. Krishnakumar, Proprietor of Central Processor Global Inc. Slofter, has opened a current account with the opposite party bank and a sum of Rs.250/- is being deducted every month towards service charges. The opposite party promised to give mercantile banking service for the Current account and also promised to extend Letter of Credit facility in favour of the suppliers of the complainant for his export business. According to the complainant, after completion of the first transaction with the foreign buyers, he has received a cash order for rice and fertilizer for a quantity of 25000 metric tons each. The complainant through letter in Ex.A6 dt.19.5.2002, requested the opposite party to extend the issuance of letter of credit by sanctioning the credit facilities. Even though, the opposite party has made various correspondences, subsequently, does not extended the said facilities. According to the complainant, the opposite party did not reply to any of his letters about letter of credit and lean mark amount (margin amount), resulting in, he was constrained to approach Banking Ombudsman. The opposite party furnished misleading and false information to the Banking Ombudsman, and accordingly his complaint to the Banking Ombudsman was dismissed. Subsequently, the complainant has again approached the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Director General of Foreign Trade and Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, all his efforts proved futile. The opposite party by maintaining discreet silence for several months and refusing to extend the facilities, made the complainant to loose his business with the foreign buyers and the said action amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly claimed compensation of Rs.1 Crore towards business loss in addition to Rs.1 crore as compensation for mental agony, strain, tension, torture and loss of peace of mind.
(2.) The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant has approached this Forum with an oblique motive of bypassing by filing a suit on payment of huge court fee and the complainant who is the proprietor of a business firm in the name and style of Central Processor Global Inc. Slofter, he is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act, and the averments in the complaint would clearly establish that he had approached the opposite party for commercial transaction and not in his personal capacity. It is further stated that sanctioning of the credit facilities is an executive decision of the Bank and the same cannot be brought within the purview of the deficiency in service. The complainant has chosen to approach various authorities and also approached this Forum belatedly and as such the complaint should be rejected.
(3.) The complainant appeared in person and argued the matter. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A58 and on behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B10 were marked.;