State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S. Metco Export International vs The Federal Bank Ltd. on 10 December, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/11/42
1. M/S. METCO EXPORT INTERNATIONAL
O/AT. MATOSHRI RESIDENCY, A/2, GROUND FLOOR,
PRATHANA SAMJI ROAD, VILE PARLE EAST, MUMBAI 400 057.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
P. B. NO. 251, 32 BOMBAY SAMACHAR MARG FORT, MUMBAI
2. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
12TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWER,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021
3. TNT INDIA PVT. LTD.
125, JITENDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E),
MUMBAI-400093
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Manoj Mhatre, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr.K.A. Suryanarayanan, Advocate for opponent No.1.
Mr.Pratik Bagadia, Advocate for opponent No.2.
None present for opponent No.3.
ORDER (Per Honble Shri Narendra Kawde, Member ) (1) Complainant is one of the largest exporters of agricultural products in India. In the month of November 2008, complainant had shipped 5 containers of oil seeds for exporting to their customer based in Italy. Complainant has appointed opponent no.1 Bank for the banking transactions.
All the relevant documents in respect of 5 containers were given to the banker, opponent no.1 for forwarding the same to the buyers bankers in Italy. However, the opponent no.1 Bank failed to carry out instructions of the complainant as payment from the consignee was not received on account of failure of forwarding the documents to the consignees Bankers.
(2) The learned advocate of the complainant tried to make out case of the complainant as a consumer within the provisions of the Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the complainant could not satisfy as to how the complainant is a consumer when the transaction is of commercial nature and to earn profit by exporting the agricultural products. Obviously, the services of the opponent no.1 were availed by the complainant for commercial purpose. Considering the nature of the complainant in totality, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer as defined within the four corners of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, no deficiency whatsoever as alleged by the complainants against the opponent Bank can be considered.
Hence, the complaint is NOT ADMITTED and rejected in limine.
Pronounced on 10th December, 2013.
[HON'ABLE MRS.
Usha S.Thakare] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER pgg