The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent's claim was time-barred, and the respondent lacked the necessary standing to file the claim under the Consumer Protection Act.

S. Rajendra Babu, J.—The respondent before us filed a petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’] to claim that the respondent has been exporting tea to Sudan from 1970 till 1982. The respondent had effected exports of 13 consignments of tea to M/s. Sudan Tea Company, Khartoum, Sudan during the period between December 11, 1980 and March 2, 1981. The respondent who had credit facilities with the appellants entrusted the documents relating to export of tea for the purpose of realising the proceeds thereof from the consignee. The appellants issued advice of purchase of bills to the respondent in respect of the goods covered by several invoices. The appellants negotiated the documents relating to the exports effected by the respondent through M/s. E.L. Nilein Bank, Khartoum, Sudan [hereinafter referred to as ‘the foreign Bank’]. The respondent claimed that he did not ask the appellants to negotiate the export documents through any particular Bank in Sudan but the appellants on their own appointed the foreign Bank, for realising the export proceeds from the consignee; that the appellants had not at any time consulted or even obtained the respondent’s opinion in the matter of appointing the foreign Bank; that the appellants had to release the export documents to the consignee only on payment of the export value in U.S. Dollars and the instructions to release the shipping documents to the consignee to enable him to take delivery of the consignment as denoted by the expression ‘cash against documents’. It is further claimed that the appellants should not have realised the export documents without receiving the export value from the consignee in U.S. Dollars. It is contended that the invoices were realised in U.S. Dollars and the appellants could not have realised the export documents before ensuring that the export proceeds could be repatriated to India in U.S. Dollars. In accordance with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India in the matter of exports, the proceeds had to be reliased and repatriated to India only in U.S. Dollars and not in any other currency. The appellants did not inform the respondent of any difficulties experienced by them in the matter of negotiations of the aforesaid export documents at any time prior to the completion of the exports covered by the invoices in question. Moreover, the appellants did not approach the respondent in effecting any changes in the authority given by it in the matter of negotiating the said documents. The respondent had taken insurance coverage for the exports effected by them from the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’] to cover the risks involved in the export business. After the respondent was advised by the appellants that they could not realise the export proceeds in U.S. Dollars due to certain restrictions imposed by the Sudan Government requested the respondent to approach the Corporation to settle the claim using the insurance policy taken by the respondent in respect of the goods covered by the documents in question. The Corporation finally paid ninety percent of the export proceeds covered by the documents. The appellants illegally recovered by balance from the respondent by adopting the balance of ten percent of the export value to the account of the respondent with them. The respondent also claimed a sum of Rs. 52,816-76p towards interest for the period until the insurance claim was settled by the Corporation. These amounts were debited to the account of the respondent. The appellants also recovered a sum of Rs. 97,482-19p towards foreign exchange fluctuation charges from the respondent. It was claimed by the respondent that the appellants had totally failed to execute the specific instructions of the respondent to realise the export documents to the consignee only after accepting in cash in U.S. Dollars but were negligent in holdi