IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum must deal with complaint on merits filed within two years from date of accrual of cause of action, if beyond said period, sufficient cause must be shown and delay condoned for reasons recorded in writing.

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member—In January 2001, the complainant exported garments to an Italian buyer in Milano. The documents pertaining to the aforesaid export were negotiated through the opposite party Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as IOB), and were to be released to the overseas buyer against payment within 120 days from the date of the bill of lading. The documents were transmitted by the opposite party-IOB to Bank Credito Italiano, for collecting payment from the overseas buyer. According to the complainant he had given 10% discount to the buyer in case the bills were paid within 120 days from the date of delivery of documents but he did not make payment of three bills on due dates and, therefore, he cancelled the said discount. As regards one bill it is claimed that though no payment was made by the buyer, the goods were got cleared by him meaning thereby that the bank in Italy had handed over the documents to the buyer without receiving the payment. This is also the case of the complainant that though vide letter dated 07-03-2001 they had requested IOB to instruct the drawee bank to release the documents against their guarantee for payment by 120 days from the date of bill of lading and allow 10% discount, even the said guarantee was not collected by IOB. The case of the complainant thus is that there was negligence on the part of the IOB in carrying out the instructions given to it from time to time. The complainant claims that full amount of one bill is due to it from the foreign buyer whereas 10% of the balance amount is due against the remaining three bills. Alleging deficiency on the part of the IOB in rendering services to it, the complainant is before this Commission seeking payment of Rs.3,74,64,930/- along with interest, besides loss of profit amounting to Rs.2,62,00,000/-, compensation amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. The complaint was filed on 30-10-2006. Vide order dated 05-12-2006 this Commission summarily dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by this Commission the complainant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of an appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, was of the view that this Commission was not justified in summarily dismissing the complaint without even taking note of the fact that the complainant had also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, the order passed by this Commission was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Commission. It was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this Commission shall first issue notice to the opposite party in the matter of limitation and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties on the question of limitation. If that question is decided in favour of the complainant then this Commission shall decide this matter on merit.

3. Along with the complaint an application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint was filed by the complainant. The aforesaid application to the extent it seeks to explain the delay reads as under:

“3. The complainant’s transactions with the opposite party were from the year 1992, In the year 2001, the opposite party because of their negligence and deficiency in service had caused loss to the complainant by not ensuring payment before delivery of four export documents, as the opposite party had also not carried out the instructions given by the complainant. After that the complainant had been regularly corresponding with the opposite party to make good the loss suffered by the complainant, but the opposite party were prolonging the matter and were assuring the complainant that the matter would be sorted out. The opposite party had with a mala fide intention had been maintaining silence and were neither deciding the claim of the complainant nor were rejecting the claim as