IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial purpose – generation of Profit - It cannot be assumed that the business activities carried out by the Complainant/Appellant, which is a Private Limited Company, were not for any commercial purpose and were being carried out exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment nor it is their case. The services of the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank availed by the Complainant/Appellant were directly connected with its business activities, which were being carried out for commercial purpose in order to generate profit.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—This First Appeal has been filed by the original Complainant, namely, Needle Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., against the order dated 17.08.2015, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Case No. 7/2007. By the impugned order, while holding that the Complainant/Appellant herein had not established its case of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein (for short the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank), and, therefore, the Complainant/Appellant is not entitled to claim compensation, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Appellant.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant/Appellant, a Private Limited Company, engaged in the manufacturing of hand sewing needles, knitting pins, surgical needles and other allied products, had a current account with the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank (Opposite Party/Respondent No.1) for the last over 25 years and was operational as on the date of filing of the Complaint (09.01.2007).

3. On 21.06.2006 and 24.06.2006 the Complainant/Appellant had raised two invoices on a Company called JAHBALT in South Africa. The total value of the said invoices was US $ 3544.00. On 21.07.2006 the Complainant/Appellant’s customer had made payment through State Bank of India, New York for onward transfer to the Complainant/Appellant’s Banker, i.e. State Bank of Travancore. Though the amount was received by the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank but for about a fortnight it denied having received the said amount. However, on 02.08.2006 the Complainant/Appellant came to know that the amount was received by the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank on 21.07.2006 and was lying with them since then.

4. In a subsequent incident, the Complainant/Appellant had raised two invoices dated 20.06.2006, valued at US $ 13,860.69, on the same customer at Sought Africa, which had made payment on 17.08.2006 through State Bank of India, New York. The amount was received on the same date by the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank but they denied having received the same till 05.10.2006. On 05.10.2006 the Complainant/Appellant contacted the Assistant General Manager of Opposite Party/Respondent Bank (Opposite Party/Respondent No.2), and got the response that payment had not been received by them. However, after about 15-20 minutes, a person, who did not disclose his name, contacted the Complainant/Appellant’s Banker State Bank of Travancore and informed that the money had been received by the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank on 17.08.2006. This negligence on the part of the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank resulted in misunderstanding between the Complainant/Appellant and its customers. The Complainant/Appellant immediately made a complaint to the Assistant General Manager of Opposite Party/Respondent Bank about the delay in the transactions but no action was taken on the same.

5. Further, the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank had misplaced a Cheque that had been deposited by the Complainant/Appellant towards remittance of ESI payment on 18.09.2006. The Complainant/Appellant’s staff, who had reached the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank to deposit the Cheque, was instructed to leave the same in the remittance tray and to obtain the endorsed Challan the next day. After several telephone calls and personal visits, the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank acknowledged receipt of the Cheque on 21.09.2006 and, even after issuing a letter of apology, did not issue the endorsed Challan to the Complainant/Appellant.

6. Alleging gross negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party/Respondent Bank and the resultant hardships and mental agony faced by it, the Complainant/Appellant Company filed the afore-noted Complaint before the State Commission, praying for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards loss caused to it and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

7. Upon no