Territorial jurisdiction and the rejection of documents under the letter of credit were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 16-7-1993 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in Case No. 1530/92.

2. Briefly the complainant’s case was that the complainant received an order from M/s. P.T. Kewalram of Jakarta (Indonesia) to supply 2 sets of Electronic Slub Motion Attachment and corresponding letter of credit of U.S. $ 9000 of respondent No. 1 but respondent No. 1 refused to negotiate the letter of credit and hence the complainant was put to loss. The complainant, therefore, claimed compensation from the respondent No. 1 inter alia on the ground that the documents were forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 in Bombay, and the same were rejected by respondent No. 1 at Bombay and hence no part of cause of action arose within the local limits of the District Forum, Gwalior. It was further contended that Opponent No. 1 had acted merely as the advising bank in respect of the subject letter of credit, and was justified in rejecting documents under the letter of credit in view of the provisions of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1983 Revision International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400, which governs documentary credits including the subject letter of credit. It was further contended that if respondent No. 1 had made payment under the letter of credit it would have been in violation of prevailing Exchange Control Regulations. It was further contended that there were many discrepancies in the letter of credit, and hence respondent No. 1 was not bound to make payment under the letter of credit. The District Forum held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of the cause of action had arisen in Gwalior, but there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complainant was not entitled to any relief. In this view of the matter the complaint was dismissed.

3. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal and the order passed by the District Forum in the light of the material on record. We see no cogent reason to interfere with the finding of the District Forum that the complainant failed to establish any case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Moreover the District Forum in our opinion was not justified in holding that a part of cause of action against respondents had arisen in Gwalior. The documents under the subject letter of credit were forwarded by respondent No 2 to respondent No. 1 at Bombay and the same were rejected by respondent No. 1 at Bombay. The facts that goods were supplied to the buyer from Gwalior or that the letter of credit was received by the complainant at Gwalior would not constitute parts of cause of action against the respondents, as held by the District Forum. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on that ground also.

4. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

–