The court emphasized that the complainant's grievance should be directed towards the buyer for failing to make the payment as agreed, and that the opponent's actions were in accordance with banking practice and the instructions of the complainant.

Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President—The complainant is a private limited Company incorporated under the Singapore Companies Act and it is having its registered office at Singapore. The complainant sold 49.5 M.T. of polyethylene LDP 900 to one K.C. Enterprises for total price of US $ 29205 under invoice No. 320901 dated January 20,1993. Documents relating to the said consignment were sent through State Bank of Indore, the opponent herein. The documents included bill of exchange dated January 21,1993 which was payable on site on presentation to K.C. Enterprise.

2. K.C. Enterprise requested the complainant to grant period of 90 days beyond the due date of payment of the said bill of exchange. According to the complainant the period of 90 days was to be counted from January 21, 1993. The complainant granted this request of K.C. Enterprises and extended the time for payment of the bill of exchange as a special case. This time was further extended by 60 days at the request of K.C. Enterprises. The opponent was informed about extension of time on both the aforesaid occasions. The complainant had granted extension of time as aforesaid subject to the condition of payment of interest. The complainant had accordingly issued revised bills of exchange and invoice and instructed the opponent to release original documents to K.C. Enterprises against the acceptance of payment on due date.

3. It is submitted that extended period of sixty days expired on July 21, 1993. After the expiry of this period since the complainant had not received payment it made enquiry with the opponent and came to know that it had released the documents without collecting payment from K.C. Enterprises. The complainant has alleged that the opponent had thereby failed to discharge its obligation and was thus guilty of deficiency in service. On the above grounds the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 12,11,065.13 together with 21.5% interest from the opponent.

4. The opponent's reply to the complaint is at Exh. 8. It has denied the allegation of deficiency of service made by the complainant and submitted that the documents were delivered to K.C. Enterprises as per the banking practice and instructions of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant itself had authorised the opponent to release documents to K.C. Enterprises on its accepting to pay the amount due under the bill of exchange on due date. K.C. Enterprises had accepted the bill of exchange and agreed to make payment due under it on the due date. Merely because K.C. Enterprises failed to fulfil its commitment by failure to make payment it could not be said that the opponent was in any way guilty of deficiency of service. The opponent has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The case of the complainant is that the bill of exchange which was originally issued was payable does on site on its being presented to K.C. Enterprises by the opponent. The complainant itself gave two extensions to K.C. Enterprises as aforesaid for payment of the bill of exchange. In other words, the complainant allowed time to K.C. Enterprises for making payment under the bill of exchange. Once K.C. Enterprises accepted the bill of exchange and agreed to make payment on due date as per the extension granted by the complainant the opponent could not have withheld the documents. In other words, after acceptance by K.C. Enterprises, the opponent was required to release documents in favour of K.C. Enterprises. The opponent, therefore, cannot be Held guilty of deficiency of service because it released the documents on acceptance of bill of exchange by K.C. Enterprises. It is even the complainant's case that the opponent was required "to release the original documents to the above mentioned customer against the acceptance of payment on due date." Therefore, once K.C. Enterprises accepted to make payment on due date, the opponent was required to release the documents and hand