National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Sabari Syndicate vs The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. And Anr. on 8 May, 1991
JUDGMENT
Y. Krishan, Member
1. According to the Complainant, the Sabari Syndicate, it had been promised various types of financial assistance by Opposite Party No. 1 (the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.) for executing the contract for Ship Breaking that it secured from the Metal Scrap Trading Corporation (M.S.T.C.) in 1982. In its complaint it has alleged that the Bank did not render service to the Complainant and perform its obligations to the Complainant- client in accordance with the principles and practices of banking, that the bank was guility of negligence in its dealings, that it failed to give the financial facilities which it was committed to render to the Complainant, that the bank had indulged in unfair business/trade practices leading to the Complainant's unit having to suffer loss and damage. On these grounds the complainant has claimed compensation at the rate of 20 lakh per annum from 1985 onwards.
2. The ship which was acquired by the Complainant from the M.S.T.C. was insured for certain risks with the Opposite Party No.2. According to the Complainant, the Insurance Company has also failed to pay the amounts due to the Complainant under the Marine Hull Policies and therefore the Opposite Party No.2 has been guilty of unfair business/trade practices and that there has been deficiency in its service to the Complainant.
3. The Opposite Party No. 1 has taken the preliminary objection to the complaint being entertained on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. According to the Opposite Party the cause of action can be said to have arisen in October, 1982 and in any event the last transaction by the Bank in relation to the client Complainant was done in August, 1985.
4. Secondly, it has pointed out that the matter is already sub-judice. The Bank (Opposite Party No. 1) has filed a suit against the Complainant for the recovery of the amount due to them viz., Rs. 45.38 lakhs. Sri Sabari Syndicate, the Complainant, has also filed a suit against the Bank for settlement of Account and also filed a writ petition concerning this case in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
5. The Complainant has, however, averred that he has not filed any suit against Opposite Parties for damages so far.
6. On the perusal of the written statement filed by Sri Sabari Syndicate, the Complainant herein, in the suit filed in the Court of the Sub-Judge at Emakulam instituted by the Opposite Party No. 1 (the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.). It is clear that the Complainant has alleged that the Bank had kept excessive and unjustified margins unilaterally at the time of releasing the amounts due to him, that there was failure on the part of the Bank to renew the guarantee given to the M.S.T.C. resulting in the non-renewal of the licence of the Complainant, to renew the guarantee in favour of the Cochin Port Trust and that it has charged excessive interest etc.
7. It is evident from these facts that the Complainant has claimed compensation for the alleged deficiencies in service provided by the Bank. In any case the adjudication of the suit filed by the Bank, the Opposite Party No. 1, for recovery of the amounts advanced under the O.D.H. Account (Over Draft Hypothication Account), against letters of credit, bank guarantees etc. will necessarily involve a determination of the contention of the complaint in that suit that the Bank did not act in accordance with the contractual obligations towards the client and in accordance with the banking practices.
8. Now the Commission turns to the complaint against the Opposite Party No.2, M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Cochin. From the paper-book it appears that there were three accidents on account of which the Complainant made claims against the insurer on the strength of the insurance policies. Two Fire accidents occurred, 1st on 20th May, 1983 and the second on the 6th August, 1983. In these cases the Opposite Party No.2 repudiated its liability under the insurance policies and the claimant, complainant here, filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act before the Court of Sub-Judge, Ernakulam. Subsequently, in January, 1990 the parties arrived at a compromise for a sum of Rs. 62,932/- for both the claims and the suit filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was allowed to be withdrawn by the sub-Judge. There was, subsequently, disagreement among the parties on the compromise as to whether the insurer had to pay interest on the compromise amount and this has led to the insured, Complainant here, to resile from the compromise and he filed an application for restoration of the case in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ernakulam. This is still pending adjudication.
9. The third accident giving rise to claim against Insurance company occurred in December, 1983. The insured, complainant here, claimed 17.27 lakhs as loss against that policy. This was repudiated by the insurer Opposite Party No.2. The insured thereafter filed a civil suit in the court of sub-judge, Ernakulam for realisation of the amount on the insurance policy and it is pending adjudication.
10. It is amply clear from the above that the insurance claims of the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.2 are sub-judice.
11. The counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued before us that the disputes raised by him against the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 before this Commission are not sub-judice and that they were not time barred.
12. The Commission has no doubt that the claims made in the complaint by the Complainant are sub-judice in the various forums. The complaint, therefor, cannot be entertained. The Commission refrains from expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the complaint with reference to the law of limitation and also on the merits of the allegations against the Opposite Party.