Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
R. Subbiah, President and R. Venkatesaperumal, Member
M/s. Meenal Exports and Anr. —Appellants
versus
M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
F.A. Nos.69 of 2016 & 167 of 2017
Decided on 29.4.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
F.A. No.69 of 2016:
For the Appellants:M/s. Jawahar, Advocate
For the Respondents: M/s. Ramasubramaniam & Associates
F.A. No.167 of 2017:
For the Appellants in F.A. No.167 of 2017: M/s. Ramasubramaniam & Associates
For the Respondent in F.A. No.167 of 2017:M/s. Jawahar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Summary Proceedings - only the civil court shall be the proper adjudicating authority where the parties can examine/cross examine witnesses and thus, adduce elaborate oral and documentary evidence and broadly canvass all the disputed facts and issues involved, which cannot be done in summary proceedings before the consumer forum.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Services – Banking – Credit Facility - Completed questions of fact – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Parties relegated to Civil Court - Appeal Against order of District Commission - On facts, maintainability of the complaint itself is questioned since the complaint reveals that complicated questions of facts and law have been raised in connection with the sequence of events arising out of the complainant’s export shipments and the alleged non-realization of payments for the same; thus, the same cannot be decided by the consumer forum in the summary proceedings and it is proper for the complainant to approach only the civil court concerned – Thus, although it was not the sole ground for repudiation, only the civil court shall be the proper adjudicating authority where the parties can examine/cross examine witnesses and thus, adduce elaborate oral and documentary evidence and broadly canvass all the disputed facts and issues involved, which cannot be done in summary proceedings before the consumer forum. Pausing here, it must also be stated that the District Forum has completely misdirected itself by misconstruing the facts and documents, in particular Ex.B8, to ultimately hold that the OP had agreed on the balance due to the complainant, which is quite contrary to the facts and the materials placed. Hence, the impugned order has no legal basis to stand and the same is liable to be set aside as nullity - Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed by holding that, for proper adjudication, the matter can only be relegated to the civil court concerned where the parties can adduce elaborate oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. [Paras 7 to 9]
Result: F.A. No.69 of 2016 is dismissed.

ORDER

R. Subbiah, President.—As against the Order, dated 21.01.2016, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai-South, in C.C. No.52 of 2011, the complainant/Firm has filed F.A. No.69 of 2016 on the grievance that the District Forum ought to have allowed their total claim instead of allowing the complaint in part, while the Opposite Party/Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, by filing F.A. No.167 of 2017, seeks to set aside the impugned order in partly allowing the complaint and consequently directing them to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.6,51,081/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.

2. Since both the appeals arise from the same impugned order and the issues involved therein are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

3. In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed by them before the District Forum, is as follows:-

The complainant/partnership firm, carrying on the business of exporting agarbathis, perfumes, cosmetics, etc. in small scale, had obtained Small Exporter’s Policy with the OP/Corporation vide Policy No.SEC-0070009078. The complainant received a purchase Order, dated 01.11.2007, from M/s.Primmas Wholesale Emporium (in short PWE) SDN BHD, Malaysia, for the supply of agarbathis worth US$ 20,550 and subsequently, the said order was enhanced twice on 01.02.2008 and 05.02.2008 for US$ 30,550 & US$ 4900 respectively. The complainant also obtained Credit Limit Approval with the OP on the buyer/PWE for Rs.12,50,000/- vide letter dated 03.12.2007. The complainant exported the goods under two Bills of lading, dated 26.03.2008 & 02.05.2008. Both the said bills were purchased by the complainant through their Bankers/Indian Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch. The complainant was hoping that those bills would be honoured in the ordinary course of commercial transactions. The returns for the shipments were filed by the complainant to the OP within the prescribed period in Form No.203 and also Form No.205 for payments delayed beyond 30 days from the due date, for which, the OP replied stating, inter alia, that the claim form could be submitted within a period of 2 years from the original due date in prescribed form, vide letter dated 13.06.2008. While so, vide letter, dated 10.06.2008, the buyer/PWE had informed their Bankers CIMB Bank Berhad, Malaysia, that they did not purchase the bills raised on them and advised the said Banker to return the documents to the complainant. Having been conveyed of the said development through his Banker, the complainant requested PWE to clear the bills but they refused by citing financial constraints, whereupon, he immediately contacted the OP for further course of action. While so, the complainant received an offer letter, dated 21.06.2008, from M/s. Jes Global (M) SDN BHD, offering to clear the goods of the two bills and the said letter was immediately brought to the attention of the OP, vide letter dated 23.06.2008. In the meantime, the complainant was able to realize a sum of Rs.1,85,515/- from PWE which factum was duly intimated to the OP. While so, for the purpose of submitting the claim form within the prescribed period, by letter, dated 14.07.2008, the complainant requested the OP to send the claim form, however, despite reminders, the OP did not choose to furnish them with the claim form. It turned out that M/s.Jes Global also failed to clear the bills which prompted the complainant to personally visit Malaysia for ascertaining the exact position of the export made. After obtaining authorization letters from the Bankers under intimation to the OP, the complainant visited Malaysia, where, at the Port, a new buyer M/s. ElectroPay, Malaysia, came forward to see the condition of the goods before accepting the same. However,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (1)