National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chunilal Pranjivandas & Co. And Ors. vs Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 4 April, 2002
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This is a complaint filed by M/s. Chunilal Pranjivandas & Co. and Ors. against Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. The case of the Complainant is that it has been banking with the bank for more than eight years and was enjoying various credit limits of Rs. 80 lakhs from the Opposite Party including demand documentary bill purchase under LR/RR with Mandvi branch of the Opposite Party and bill discounting facility etc. In the course of their business, they had drawn 32 Hundis collectively for a total sum of Rs. 59 lakhs drawn on Sree Nagalakshmi Textile Mills (Madurai) Ltd. between 24.6.99 and 4.9.99. The (SIC) hundis were discounted for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and the credit there was given to Complainant's Current Account No. 333383 with the Mandavi Branch. Apart from these 32 hundis, the Complainant had drawn 6 more hundis for a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs on the same Sree Nagalakshmi Textile Mills (Madurai) Ltd. between 8.1.2000 to 4.2.2000. Between 22.11.1999 and 12.2.2000 the Mandavi Branch of the Bank on having failed to receive payment for Hundis debited the Complainant's account with the sum of Rs. 59 lakhs in respect of 32 hundis. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent bank had not followed the due process of law for recovery of the amount of hundis and for that reason the Complainant suffered serious prejudice inasmuch as the remedy of filing summary suit under Order 37 Rule 2 of CPC was lost. The Complainant states that they have also suffered a loss of Rs. 66,66,687/- representing Rs. 59,00,000/- plus Rs. 6,60,687/- as interest on the said Rs. 59 lakhs. They say that Opposite Party should have obtained acceptance on the said bills. It is further alleged that on 1.3.2000, 10.3.2000 and 24.3.2000 the Complainant had under pressure from the Opposite Party executed the hundis bearing No. 137, 142 to 147, 153 to 159 aggregating to a amount of Rs. 44.15 lakhs and the amount of such bills discounting was put in a fixed deposit receipt. But, the Bank vide their memos adjusted the Complainant's Current Account with the opposite party at the time of purchase of hundis from the Complainant and debited the said amount to the current account the Complainant. The Complainant has alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party in discounting the said hundis. A notice of the said complaint was issued to the Opposite Party who, in is reply denied any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. They have stated that Opposite Party had sanctioned documentary bills purchase limit of Rs. 80 lakhs to the Complainant with the realisation period of 60 days against the security of lien over the lorry receipts/railway receipts covering despatch of cotton bales to various textile mills. They state that bills were sent for collection and the Complainants were informed several times orally and by various letters dated 18.8.99, 15.9.99, 13.10.99, 13.11.99, 10.12.99 and 22.12.99 regarding non-realisation of the bills. Since the bills had become overdue the bank recovered the amount from the current account of the Complainants on various dates after getting oral confirmation in order to avoid penal interest to be charged to the Complainant's account. All this was done to save the Complainant from becoming liable to pay penal interest.
2. As per the bills purchase agreement it was the Complainants liability to pay the bill amount along with interest and other charges in case of non-payment and the Opposite Party has indicated in their reply the dates on which the hundis fell due for payment and the actual dates for recovery. It is stated that the bank had taken care expected of a banker in discounting the bills and presenting those for payment. They have also filed letters being Annexures O-18 and O-24 to show that the Complainants were periodically informed regarding the status of the pending bills. They have also referred to two letters received from the drawee of the bills wherein the bank was requested that the bills be retained, copies of these letters are stated to be marked to the Complainant. All these bills were sight bills and as such they were to be paid on presentation by the drawee. Presentation memo was given for all the bills. It is further allegedly by the bank that the Complainant did not give any instruction to the bank to note and protest the bills for non-payment. However, the bank, even though it was not instructed to get the bills noted and protested, advised the Complainant that the bills could be represented for noting on protest by a notary public. But the Complainant did not respond to the said letters and that the Complainant never raised any protest or objection. In this connection the bills were finally returned unpaid and the credit entries accordingly reversed by debiting the current account of the Complainant. They have further alleged that since the bill purchase amount exceeded the sanction limit, consequently, the excess amount was kept infixed deposit instead of being retained as margin on bills from 10.3.2000. The Complainant had alleged that even the interest tax deducted by the bank had been deposited with the government, This allegation has not been disputed by the bank. They have pointed out that all the deductions on account of interest tax were duly deposited by the head office of the bank at Tuticorin. They have dealt with all other allegations by denying any unfair trade practice being adopted to or resorted to by the Bank. In support they have furnished various figures, accounts and documents. Apart from annexures, no evidence was lead by the parties. On pointing out the fact that this case involves disputed facts and details of the accounts maintained by the bank and by the Complainant, apart from considering the question of dishonour of various bills and the reasons thereof, which required elaborate evidence and appreciation of fats and law and could be better dealt by civil court. Mr. S.B. Prabhawalkar, learned counsel for the Complainant made a statement seeking leave to withdraw the complaint with liberty to approach civil court against the Opposite Party. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking withdrawal of the statement of Mr. Prabhawalkar. Such a statement could not be withdrawn as Mr. Prabhawalkar did not make any such statement under any mistake of fact and was made as a counsel appearing for the party. He was amply empowered to make any such statement. In any event, in the absence of such statement, we have noticed the above facts at some length only to indicate the nature of the controversy between the parties which requires elaborate evidence and decision of those facts in the light of commercial laws and practice prevailing in the trade and industry, including matters of accounting. We are also of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for consideration and decision in a summary manner and should proceed to full-fledged trial. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the Complainant's rights to approach any civil court or any other forum to seek redresssal of his grievance. In the light of the above we do not express any opinion on the rights and obligations of the parties. In the circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.