State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd vs Dena Bank on 15 February, 2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Complaint case No.53/2010 Date of Institution:30.7.2010 Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,8 M.W. Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Director A.P.S.Chawla. Complainant Versus 1. Dena Bank, SCO No.7, Sector -7-C, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager. 2. M/s Anchal Engineering (PVt) Ltd. VPO Malpura, Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana through its Director Shri Mahavir Singh 2nd address- H.No.1349, Block B/s, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon-122001. 3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, SCO No.62, Sector-17, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chief Manager. .. Opposite parties Complaint U/s 17 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 Complaint case No.58/2010 Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,8 M.W.Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Director A.P.S.Chawla. Complainant Versus 1. Dena Bank, SCO No.7, Sector -7-C, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager. 2. M/s Anchal Engineering (PVt) Ltd. VPO Malpura, Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana through its Director Shri Mahavir Singh 2nd address- H.No.1349, Block B/s, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon-122001. 3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, SCO No.62, Sector-17, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chief Manager. .. Opposite parties Complaint U/s 17 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 BEFORE : Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Presiding Member Sh.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member Argued by : Sh.Gopal Sharma, advocate for complainant Sh.Varun Katyal,advocate for OP NO.1 Sh.Ashwani Kumar Bura,Advocate for OP NO.2. . Sh.Jatinder Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3. JUDGMENT
Per Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member
1. The aforementioned two complaints have been filed by one and the same complainant firm Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and opposite parties are the same in both complaints. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in both these complaints so we are deciding these complaints through this common order.
2. The facts are culled out from complaint case No.53/2010, according to which complainant firm namely Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. which deals in sale, purchase and export of engineering goods within India and Overseas for the last many years was having current account No.047011001183 with Dena Bank- OP NO.1. M/s Advance Retail, New Delhi and M/s G.R.D.Engineering Gurgaon placed an order with the complainant for supply and installation of stainless steel railing at Asian village at New Delhi, L.G. display racks at different location of L.G. outlets and canopies of generating sets at different stations. In connection with the aforesaid assignment/tender, complainant placed orders to OP No.2 for the supply of goods as per the order and it was agreed between complainant and OP NO.2 to open Inland Letter of Credit in favour of OP No.2 with Dena Bank. Complainant placed purchase order with OP NO.2 for supply and installation of the material at Asian village for Common Wealth games to be held in October,2010. The complainant in order to execute the transaction as per the terms and conditions has opened 7 Inland letters of credit with the bank of OP NO.1 and while opening Inland letter of credit, they specifically mentioned mandatory conditions in the Letter of Credit and also mentioned the required documents for the encashment of the aforesaid Letter of Credit. Out of the 7 Letter of Credit, 4 Letter of Credit have already matured and were paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 after complying with and supplying all the mandatory documents, as per terms and conditions of Letter of Credit. The complainant had opened Letter of Credit bearing No.0470091LCS00005 dated 26.12.2009 for Rs.30.00 lacs with OP No.1 due date for payment 20.4.2010 in respect to the purchase order given to OP NO.2. While opening the said Inland Letter of Credit, complainant had specifically mentioned mandatory conditions in it and specifically stated that the aforesaid Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 be encahsed only after the fulfillment of terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit and supply of mandatory documents as mentioned in the Letter of credit which were as under ;
i) Signed Commercial Invoice :
Two Copies
ii) Packing List :Two Copies
iii) Receipt of Goods: Issued and Stamped by Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Representative (Two Copies).
iv) Certificate of Supplier in duplicate that the material supplied confirms to the buyers sample and as per the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order.
v) Inspection Certificate issued by Nidhaan Overseas Representative.
3. The aforesaid Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 was to be paid after the compliance of the mandatory Terms and conditions and before encashing the same, the aforesaid mandatory documents were required to be supplied to O.P. No. 1 by O.P. No. 2 through advising Bank i.e. O.P.No. 3, in which the O.P. No. 2 was having its bank account. As per terms and conditions of the purchase order O.P. No. 2 was to supply install/affix materials at the site and after the work, O.P. No. 2 was to offer inspection to the complainant.
In the inspection, the complainant was to check the standard of the material, installation as per the purchase order and if the complainant found the material and installation to be not in accordance with the purchase order, in that event the inspection certificate was not to be issued by the complainant or its representative. This inspection certificate was mandatory document as per the specific conditions mentioned in the Letter of credit dated 26.12.2009. Only after the receipt of the inspection certificate, O.P.No. 2 was to submit the necessary documents as mentioned above to the advising bank i.e. O.P.No. 3 for claiming the payment of Letter of Credit. O.P.No. 3 after satisfying that the mandatory documents were in order with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit was to forward these documents to the issuing Bank i.e. O.P. No. 1 for payment. Thereafter, O.P. No. 1 after the receipt of mandatory documents, as mentioned in the Letter of Credit, was to make the payment to O.P. No. 2. The due date of payment of the Inland Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 was 20.4.2010 and the same was extended to 25.04.2010 because O.P. No.2 did not supply all the five mandatory documents and only supplied the Ist four documents. The complainant then specifically wrote a letter to O.P. No. 1 on 20.04.2010 mentioning therein that the documents received were deficient and the mandatory document mentioned at Sr. No. 5 i.e. the Inspection Certificate issued by the complainant or its Representative was not received and submitted by O.P. No. 2, therefore the due date of the payment be extended upto 25.04.2010.
4. It was further alleged that M/s Advance Retail, which placed the tender/order to the complainant wrote an e-mail to it regarding the non-installation of the material at site as per their orders and also threatened to stop the payments of the advance cheques issued by it for the tender. Thereafter, payments of the cheques issued by M/s Advance Retail were also stopped. As O.P. No. 2 did not supply the material and failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the purchase order, so, it was not entitled for the payment of Letter of Credit . However, after the issuance of letter dated 20.04.2010 O.P. No. 1 wrote a letter to O.P. No. 3 for immediately getting/arranging the above mentioned discrepant document i.e. Inspection Certificate signed by the complainant for release of payment before the due date of payment i.e. 25.04.2010. After the receipt of letter dated 20.04.2010 by O.P. No. 3 with regard to submission of Inspection Certificate, O.P. No. 2 wrote a letter to the complainant, wherein it was admitted that the Inspection Certificate to be issued by the complainant, which was the mandatory document as per the Letter of Credit prior to the due date of payment, had not been supplied by it as the inspection was in progress and also gave undertaking that it would not accept the payment of the Letter of Credit till Inspection Certificate was submitted to the O.P. No. 1 but OP NO.2 failed to supply the Inspection Certificate till 25.04.2010. Thereafter, O.P. No. 2 again wrote a letter for extension of the Letter of Credit to the complainant, which was to expire on 25.04.2010. O.P. No. 1 then again informed O.P. No. 3 on 26.04.2010 and stated that as O.P. No. 2 being beneficiary of the letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 has specifically admitted that the required Inspection Certificate was a mandatory document as per the Terms of the Letter of Credit and the same would be supplied after the completion of inspection and before the due date of payment and also mentioned that the request for the extension of Letter of Credit made by the O.P. No. 2 be forwarded but the required/mandatory inspection certificate was never submitted by O.P.No. 2 and as such due date/expiry date of the letter of Credit was not extended by the complainant as well as O.P. No. 1. Therefore, after expiry of the due date 25.4.2010 the same was deemed to have expired and non-payable in favour of the O.P. No. 2.
5. It was also alleged that the complainant wrote a letter on 28.04.2010 to O.P. No. 1 and specifically mentioned that since there was no response from the O.P. No. 3, Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 be extended that day itself or it would be deemed as expired. Thus, these were the standing instructions given by the complainant to O.P. No. 1 in respect of the Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009. After the receipt of letter, O.P. No. 1 never extended the validity of the letter of credit dated 26.12.2010, which had expired on 25.04.2010,therefore, it was the duty of O.P. No. 1 not to encash the Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 and not to debit the amount from the account of the complainant since the same had already expired on 25.04.2010. However, O.P. No. 1 in connivance with O.P. No. 2 and 3 committed grave irregularity, breach of trust and played a fraud by making payment of the Letter of Credit dated 26.12.2009 in favour of O.P. No.2. This payment was made on 30.04.2009 by O.P. No. 1 in favour of O.P. No. 2 through O.P.No. 3 after the expiry of the Letter of Credit and also without receiving the mandatory/discrepant document i.e. Inspection Certificate, which was to be issued by the complainant. In this way, O.P. No. 1 caused heavy loss amounting to Rs. 30.00 lacs to the complainant by debiting the Letter of Credit amount from the account of complainant. O.P No. 1 also informed about the aforesaid irregularity and fraud to the complainant through letter dated 30.04.2010 and asked it to deposit the amount and overdue interest and bank charges. Thereafter, O.P. No. 1 also debited Rs.7 Lacs from the account of complainant without any authority and again asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 50000/-which fact is apparent from the letter dated 1.5.2010 issued by the O.P. No. 1. This act and conduct of O.P.No.1 tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice too. When complainant came to know that an amount of Rs. 30.00 lacs has been debited from its account in favour of O.P. No. 2 by O.P. No. 1, it sent a legal notice to O.P. No. 1 specifically stating therein that the payment in regard to other letters of credit be not made to O.P. No. 1 without the submission of all the mandatory documents, as mentioned in the Letters of Credit. However, O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant and as such the complainant was constrained to file a suit for mandatory injunction for restraining O.P.No. 1 from devolving the Letter of Credit Nos. 0470101LCS0002 and 0470101LCS0003 in favour of O.P. No. 2 but still the payment of Letter of Credit No. 0470101LCS0002 was made in favour of O.P. No. 2 on 17.5.2010. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before this commission.
6. Similarly complainant filed another complaint bearing No.58/2010 on the similar facts with regard to the Letter of Credit bearing No. 0470091LCS00002, dated 10.02.2010 for Rs.33.00 lacs and another Letter of Credit bearing No. 0470091LCS00003 dated 16.03.2010 for Rs.30.00 lacs
7. Upon issuance of notice of the complaint, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies.
8. OP NO.1 in its reply took certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer as per definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it has availed the service of OP bank for commercial purpose because it opened seven Letters of Credit with OP purely and solely for business/commercial purpose. Thus, by no stretch of imagination the complainant in the present case can be described/considered as a consumer as by opening the Letters of Credit the answering Bank merely took guarantee on behalf of the complaint to pay the dues of the beneficiary if the same were not paid by the complainant/applicant. Further, proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcements of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) have already been initiated against the complainant, therefore this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint . After the initiation of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the complainant paid Rs.20 Lacs by cheques to the bank with its own free will without any protest on 20.10.2010 and this act itself reveals that the Complainant acknowledges the fact that it has to repay the money which the OP Bank has released on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has also filed a civil suit against the OP bank with regard to Letter of Credit No. 0470ILCS0002 dated 10.02.2010 and Letter of Credit No.047010ILCS0003 dated 16.03.2010 which is pending in the Court of Sh. S.K. Sharma Civil Judge Junior Division U.T., Chandigarh. However, stay sought by the complainant was declined by the civil court. The complainant has not disclosed that the documents related to the Letter of Credit in question were presented before it for acceptance and it was only after the acceptance was given by the complainant, the issuing Bank conveyed the acceptance of the complainant to the bank of the beneficiary i.e Oriental Bank of Commerce which discounted the Letter of Credit in favour of the beneficiary, therefore, the complainant cannot withdraw the already given acceptance. After giving acceptance by the complainant, it becomes the moral as well as legal duty of the answering OP Bank to devolve the Letter of Credit as the answering OP Bank had took the guarantee on behalf of the complainant to make the payment to the bank of beneficiary. It was pleaded that at the request of the complainant the due date of payment was extended upto 25.04.2010 and the payment had been released only after the due date of payment when the Letter of Credit matured and not before the due date of payment. In the present case the due date of the Letter of Credit was 25.04.2010 and the payment against the said Letter of Credit was released only on 30.04.2010 i.e. after the Letter of Credit matured and became due for payment. Further the OP Bank is bound by the ICC Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) and as per Clause 7-C and 7B of UCP 600 once the person who has got opened the Letter of Credit with the Bank gives his acceptance to the documents presented to him for releasing the payment against the Letter of Credit then the issuing Bank had to devolve the Letter of Credit in favour of the beneficiary. Thus, OP bank did not cause any loss to the complainant nor committed any irregularity, breach of trust or played any fraud upon the complainant, rather it was the complainant who committed irregularities, breached the trust of the Bank and played fraud upon the Bank. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
9. OP No.2 filed short reply by way of affidavit of Sh.Mahavir Singh stating therein that the dispute involved in the complaint arose from commercial business transaction which is not maintainable in this Commission and further intricate questions of facts are involved which can only be decided by the civil court by leading proper evidence. The complainant has already initiated civil suit before the civil court for the same very cause of action.
The complainant has also filed a criminal complaint dated 3.9.2010 before the SSP, Chandigarh which is under investigation. It was further pleaded that the complainant never made any written complaint to the answering OP regarding the quality and quantity of the material supplied nor the complainant ever alleged that the material supplied was not as per the order placed by them nor did the complainant alleges that the material was not supplied to them. The problem arose when M/s Advance Retail stopped the payment of cheques qua the material supplied and only to escape from the liability and in order to get its balance amount the complainant took all possible steps to pressurize the answering OP and imposed unwarranted litigation.
10. OP NO.3 in its reply stated that the letter of credit is a binding document that a buyer can request from his bank in order to guarantee that the payment for goods will be transferred to the seller. A letter of credit gives the seller assurance that he will receive the payment for the goods and the advising bank is not concerned with the underlying contract between the buyer and the seller. It was further submitted that OP NO.2 is having its account in the OP bank and the documents were forwarded to the issuing bank on its presentation by OP NO.2. The payment of Rs.30.00 lacs related to the letter of credit in question was released in the account of OP NO.2 by the OP NO.1, and proper procedure was adopted by OP NO.3 as per banking law to pursue the letter of credit. It was pleaded that complaint under the Act does not lie against OP NO.3 as complainant is not claiming any relief or having any grievance against the answering OP.
11. Opposite parties also filed their separate replies in complaint case No.58 of 2010 taking identical pleas.
12. Parties adduced their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents in both the complaints.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. The learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the complainant is a commercial organization and Letters of Credit (LCs) were obtained by it for commercial purpose and deficiency of which services is alleged by the complainant relates to a commercial activity and therefore complainant would be outside the purview of a consumer to file the present complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant referred to the cases ; Thukaram Anantha Shet Vs The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd. 2009(1)CPC 373 , ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Quality Foils India (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2008(I)CPC656 & Central Bank of India Vs Om Sons Wires (P) Ltd. 2007(I) CLT 407 and argued that even if the complainant is running business in connection with which the LCs were obtained from OP , the complainant would still be a consumer if there is any deficiency on the part of OP in rendering the service relating to the Letters of credit.
It may be mentioned that in all the three cases referred to above by the learned counsel for complainant cause of action arose or deficiency occurred before the amendment of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act which came into force with effect from 15.3.2003. In the case Central Bank of India Vs Om Sons Wires (P) Ltd. (supra) the Honble National Commission in para NO.12 dealt with this question and held that the amendment could not be with retrospective effect and therefore services relating to the matters filed before 15.3.2003 could not be rejected by the Consumer Fora on this ground. The question as to whether service rendered for commercial purpose would be covered under the provisions of the Act was examined by the Honble Supreme Court of India in case Economic Transport Organization Vs Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr 1(2010)CPJ 4 (SC). That was a case relating to the transport service. It was held (in para-25) that after the said amendment (by Act No.62 of 2002), if the service of the carrier had been availed for any commercial purpose, then the person availing the service will not be a consumer and consequently, complaints would not be maintainable in such cases. The question again arose in case Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. I(2011) CPJ 1(SC). In that case, computer software was developed by the OP and sold to the complainant for a commercial purpose. There was deficiency in service to seven modules developed by OP. When a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service same was dismissed by the State Commission but the Honble National Commission held that the complaint was maintainable during one year warranty period even if the service was hired for a commercial purpose. The Honble Supreme court of India (in para-9) held that there could be no dispute that the goods were sold for a commercial purpose and therefore the services which were offered had also to be for the commercial purpose and therefore complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a consumer.
14. In view of the above discussion, since complainant availed Letters of Credit from the OP bank for a commercial purpose, he is excluded from the purview of complainant and cannot maintain a complaint under the Act.
15. The complainant had earlier approached the civil court for obtaining a stay order which according to the learned counsel for the complainant was with respect to certain other LCs. Annexure C-14 is copy of the plaint. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the said suit did not pertain to LC No.005 regarding which present complaint has been filed and therefore civil suit will not have any effect on the present complaint. The learned counsel for OP argued that the cause of action to seek relief with respect to LC which is subject matter of the present complaint, had arisen to the complainant even on the date on which civil suit Annexure C-14 was filed and therefore it was necessary for the complainant to include the whole claim in the said civil suit.
When once a civil suit had been filed by the complainant he could not avail the remedy by filing a consumer complaint with respect to the dispute regarding which civil suit was maintainable.
Otherwise also, it is argued that even if CPC is not applicable the broad principles of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would apply to the present case and he would be deemed to have given up the claim with respect to present LCs. We are of opinion that the complainant having preferred a civil suit cannot be permitted to agitate the matter through this consumer complaint. It is true that under Section-3 of the Act an additional remedy has been provided to the complainant to approach the Consumer Fora but this remedy cannot be availed by him side by side a civil suit.
16. When in the civil suit complainant prayed for a temporary injunction the same was declined vide order dated 3.9.2010, copy of which is now marked R-2. There is no dispute about it that the complainant has challenged the said order in an appeal which is pending before the District Court. In view of this fact also the present complaint would not be maintainable.
17. Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that a demand notice was issued to the complainant to pay the amount under letters of credit and when he failed to pay the same a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. The complainant filed SA No.151 of 2010 and the proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.
It is true that the notice Under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was withdrawn by the bank on the ground that the properties were under possession of the tenant but the letter of demand still continued. The said case is stated to be fixed for 6.4.2011 for further proceedings. The learned counsel for OP referred to Section 34 of the said Act which provides as follows ;
34.Civil court not to have jurisdiction- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993(51 of 1993).
As per Section 35 of the said Act, the provisions of SARFAESI Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law, which means that it will have overriding effect on the provisions of Act. In view of the pendency of the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, parallel proceedings before this Fora cannot be continued.
18. As regards merits, we are of the opinion that the complainant has no case on merits also. Their contention is twofold,firstly that complete set of documents have not been produced before OP, the LC could not be devolved ; secondly LC could be devolved only till 25.4.2010 and in the present case documents having not been produced on that date, credit could not be given thereafter. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for complainant referred to Annexure C-6 vide which OP NO.1 informed OP NO.3 that the inspection report received by them had not been signed by the complainant and therefore payment could not be released.
Complainant was informed vide Annexure C-7 that the inspection process was still in progress on 21.4.2010 when the said letter was issued. It is, therefore, argued that release of amount by OP NO.1 on 30.4.2010 in the absence of inspection report was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service.
The learned counsel for OP NO.1 on the other hand referred to Annexure R-1/8 vide which complainant received complete documents and accepted with due date of payment. Annexure R-1/9 is acceptance letter regarding LC No.002 whereas Annexure R-1/10 is with respect to LC No.003. (These documents are in complaint case NO.58 of 2010). Not only this, complainant admitted his liability and issued two cheques for Rs.10.00 Lacs each, one of which has since been credited and the payment relating to the other cheque Annexure R-1/3 (in complaint case NO.58/2010) was stopped by the complainant. Issuance of cheques to discharge the liability itself shows that there was no deficiency in service rendered by OPs. We, therefore, cannot say if the LC should not have been devolved by OP No.1 or payment was made after the LC had expired.
19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in these complaints and the same are dismissed. Complainant shall pay Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to OPs in each complaint.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced ( NEENA SANDHU) 15th February,2010 Presiding Member (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) Member *Js STATE COMMISSION COMPLAINT CASE NO.53/2009 Argued by: Sh.Gopal Sharma, advocate for complainant Sh.Varun Katyal,advocate for OP NO.1 Sh.Ashwani Kumar Bura,Advocate for OP NO.2. .
Sh.Jatinder Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3.
Dated the 15th day of February,2011 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-.
(Jagroop Singh Mahal) (Neena Sandhu) Member Presiding Member STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Complaint case No.58/2010Date of institution:31.8.2010 Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Nidhaan Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,8 M.W.Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Director A.P.S.Chawla.
Complainant Versus
1. Dena Bank, SCO No.7, Sector -7-C, Chandigarh thorugh its Chief Manager.
2. M/s Anchal Engineering (PVt) Ltd. VPO Malpura, Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana through its Director Shri Mahavir Singh 2nd address- H.No.1349, Block B/s, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon-122001.
3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, SCO No.62, Sector-17, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chief Manager.
.. Opposite parties Complaint U/s 17 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 BEFORE : Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Presiding Member Sh.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member Argued by : Sh.Gopal Sharma, advocate for complainant Sh.Varun Katyal,advocate for OP NO.1 Sh.Ashwani Kumar Bura,Advocate for OP NO.2. .
Sh.Jatinder Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3.
JUDGMENT Per Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member This complaint has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- in terms of our detailed order of the even date recorded separately in connected complaint case No.53 of 2010. A copy of that order be placed on this file.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Sd/-
Announced ( NEENA SANDHU) 15th February,2010 Presiding Member Sd/-
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) Member *Js