Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
Bank of Baroda, International Business
Branch —Opposite Party
Original Petition No.132 of 2000
Decided on 10.12.2014
For the Complainant:Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Advocate With Mr. Prashant Mehra & Mr. Aman Kalra, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission is not empowered to arrogate to itself powers which come within jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 3—Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 19—Banking—Deficiency in service—Non-rectification of account—Bank has filed application before DRT—National Commission is not empowered to arrogate to itself powers which come within jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal—OP Bank has raised many other questions such as case is barred by time, case involves complicated questions of facts and law and it should be relegated to civil court and other proceedings are pending—National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case—Case dismissed with liberty to complainant to seek relief from appropriate forum as per law. (Paras 14 to 18)
Result: Original Petition dismissed.
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—This complaint case was filed by M/s. Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd., the complainant, against the Bank of Baroda, the OP, on 10.04.2000, wherein the complainant has claimed the following amounts and the prayer clause of the complaint, runs as follows :
“The complainant, in the above facts and circumstances, most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Commission be pleased to order the opposite party to rectify its accounts and credit the account and/or pay to the complainant, a sum of Rs.55,87,489.15, as mentioned in the Annexure A, in respect of the above mentioned 21 foreign bills and carry out all the necessary reverse / rectification entries as also reverse all unauthorised debits / transfers made in the complainant’s packing credit account, along with compounded interest for the delayed period (from the due dates upto the date of actual payment / credit) , on the amount not credited and wrongfully debited, as such rates as the opposite party has been charging to the complainant from time to time and in any case at least @ 2% per annum with quarterly rests.
Further, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) be also awarded and ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment, trauma, agony, undue botheration, defamation, loss of business due to uncalled for financial crunch, unnecessary costs and expenses incurred by the complainant in examination of the accounts, seeking legal advice, taking up the matter with the opposite party, etc.
The Hon’ble Commission be also pleased to award costs for these proceedings in favour of the complainant and order the opposite party to pay the same to the complainant”.
2. The case of the complainant is this. The complainant maintained and had, inter alia, a Packing Credit Account, amongst other accounts, with the Bank of Baroda, the OP, for a long time and used the same for its banking needs, especially, transactions relating to exports. The complainant deposited 21 foreign bills aggregating Rs.55,87,489.15 for credit in their above mentioned account, which the OP duly acknowledged through their credit advices at the time of purchase / realization. The statement showing details of 21 foreign bills has been placed on record as Annexure – A.
3. The Bank of Baroda, OP duly sent the credit advices in relation to the above said bills, from time to time, to the complainant, drawing complainant to believe that due crediting had been given to it. The Account Statements were never supplied as there was no procedure for the same. However, the OP Bank filed a complaint before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) , Jaipur, in late 1988. Copy of the statements, credit advices, invoices, packing credit ledger account, statement of current account, etc., were filed as part of the proceedings before the DRT, Jaipur, which copies have also been placed on record as Annexures B-1 to B-21 (Colly) .
4. The Statements (Annexures A and B) reveal that a sum of Rs.53,47,000/- was shown credited by the OP in the above said packing credit amount of the complainant. It further reveals that the OP has charged a sum of Rs.12,252/- at the time of purchase of above said foreign bills. Again, a sum of Rs.1,32,626.81 was debited to the complainant’s current account at the time of realization vide realization advices and that a sum of Rs.2,28,237.15 was credited to the complainant’s current account as the remaining balance / odd amount as per the purchase advices issued by the OP.
5. For the first time, it transpired that in late 1998, from scrutiny of these documents that the credit for the above said 21 foreign bills had not been given as also certain wrong and unauthorized debits had been made in the account of the complainant. This is a result of the admitted defalcation and fraud perpetuated by the staff of OP. On enquiry, it revealed that the OP was aware of all these things. The complainant protested and the OP assured that they were looking into the matter. However, th
