SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 25623

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Linzii Rep by its Proprietor Himanshu Bhushan Karur – Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Karur – Respondent
SC/CB1/33/CC/18/2012



Petitioner Advocates:Mr.V.Balaji-Comp. ,Respondent Advocate: Mr.Palaramasamy-OP

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.18/2012 (C.C.No.59/2007 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai)

WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF MARCH 2022.

Date of complaint filed : 09.10.2007 Date of order pronounced :16.03.2022 LINZII, 50-C/1, Kamarajapuram West, Karur – 639 002, Represented by its Proprietor Himanshu Bhushan. Complainant -Vs-

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, No.1, Senguthapuram Main Road, Karur – 639 002. Opposite Party Counsel for the complainant : Mr.V.Balaji, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Party : Mr.Pala Ramasamy, Advocate. This case coming before us for final hearing on 20.11.2021 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction the opposite party to get back the Export bill GA/06/05-06 dated 04.12.2005 for a value of USD 78,884.11 or to pay the sum of Rs.35,97,115/- covered under the aforesaid invoice and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the costs.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is having a current account with the opposite party bank. The current account No.1848. He is doing Textile Export Business. From the date of opening current account, the complainant used to send all the Export proceeds through the opposite party and get them realized through the opposite party’s, Coimbatore Branch or Tirupur Branch since the opposite party is not having Foreign Exchange facility at Karur. One of its Foreign buyer namely GARCIA Y HIJOS, at AVENIDA DUARTEKM 7.5, SANTO DOMINGO REPUBLIC OF DOMINICA placed the purchase indent dated 04.12.2005 for the supply of Fabric and Towels. The purchase order of the Foreign buyer, the complainant manufactured the fabric and towels and handed over the documents to the opposite party on 06.01.2006. The documents were negotiated through foreign banker namely “Swiss Fin Corp” at International Division (Foreign Exchange) Avenuda Duarte, Santiago, Dominica Republic. The complainant has submitted a following documents for collection of bill amount in respect of Invoice No. GA/06/2005-06 VIZ.

1. INVOICE No.GA/06/2005-06 DATED 22.12.2005 : 5 Copies Original 2. Packing List GA/06/2005-06 dated 22.12.2005 : 5 Copies Original 3. Bill of Exchange No.GA/06 : 2 Copies Original

4. B/L No.INI 106800, dated 30.12.2005 : 5 (3 Original + Copy)

5. Exchange control copy of shipping bill : Original + Copy

6. Certificate of Origin : Dated 03.01.2006 : Original.

The total amount covered under the Invoice No.GA/06/05-06 dated 22.12.2005 is USD 78,884.11 equivalent to Indian Rupees 35,97,115/-. There are 24,347 pieces of towel and 596 pieces of Fabric. The total number of net weight is 12,858 kgs and total gross weight is 13,386 kgs. The consignment was sent by sea by Ocean vessel called Tiger Wave and Port of Loading is Chennai and Port of Discharge is Montevideo. After the shipment the complainant frequently contacted the opposite party for the realization of the proceeds. On 21.04. 2006 the complainant wrote the letter to the opposite to call back the proceeds since he has not received any information from the banker and consignee. In that letter the complainant and specifically informed that till such date he has not received any payment or any follow up feedback from the opposite party which leads to goods to be re-imported or sale to the another prospective buyer. The letter evoked no response.

On 21.06.2006 again he requested to take steps immediately to call back the export proceeds. This letter also evoked no response. Then again on 05.02.2007 he issued a reminder to the opposite party and do needful for call back the expor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top