West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/10/238

JMD Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/238
 
1. JMD Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.
P-336, CIT Road, Kolkata-700054.
Kolkata
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd.
88, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700020.
Kolkata
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 09 Aug 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.   37    Dated   09/08/2016.

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is running a business as a commercial house. The Centurrian Bank of Punjab Ltd. established a letter of credit on behalf of the complainant Hitachi Medical Systems (S) PTE Ltd. as a beneficiary. In terms of the said letter of credit a sum $ 32,000 was to be paid and $ 2,00,000 also payable after 360 days. The complainant provided 100% margin for the aforesaid letter of credit. Subsequently the o.p. took over the business of the said Centurrian Bank and authorized the o.p. to debit $ 2,00,000 within 360 days. The said fact was intimated to o.p. but o.p. did not take any action. As such, the complainant by filing this case has prayed for giving necessary direction to o.ps. for payment of $ 2,00,000 @ Rs.39.68 amounting to Rs.7,36,199/- and also for other relief.

            The o.p. contested the case by filing a w/v whereby the o.p. denied all the material allegations of the complainant. In the w/v the o.p. specifically stated that the complainant is a private limited company carrying on it business, as such, not a consumer within the meaning of the C.P. Act. In view of the said fact the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties it has to be decided whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

 

Decision with reasons:

            The complainant stated in the complaint that the complainant provided 100% margin of the letter of credit by making two separate fixed deposit and also instructed the o.p. to forward cover $ 2,32,500. From the said materials on record it is admitted fact that the complainant is a company and the o.p. bank had the business transaction with the complainant and since this was a business deal between the complainant and the o.p. therefore we hold that this case does not come within the provision u/s 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act and it cannot be said that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as per the provision as envisaged in the C.P. Act.  Therefore, we hold that the case is not maintainable and the complainant will not been entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            That the C.C. No.238/2010 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.