Punjab National Bank, which was the opp.party before the State Commission, has filed F.A. No.334/2007 and the complainant has filed F.A. No.386/2007 against the same impugned order. Since these two appeals have been directed against the same impugned order, they are being disposed of by a common order. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant sold and delivered to M/s Ch. Mohd. Siddique & Sons, P-167, New Grain Market, Dijkot Road, Faisalabad (Pakistan) goods of the following description: (i) 600 bags of Bhindi Pusa Swani Seed (ii) 750 bags of Bindi Pusa Swani Seeds for Indian Rs.8,43,750/-. The aforesaid transactions took place under the letter of credit being LC No.841/950156 dated 29.11.1995 issued by the Faisalabad unit of OP-3 bank. OP-1 & 2 acted as bankers of the complainant. As per averments made in the complaint, terms of payment were against letter of credit payable at sight by negotiations with any bank in India in Indian rupees. Remittance of Rs.6,75,000/- was routed through FOBNLC No.675499/96 dated 25.1.1996 of Rs.8,43,750/- through FOBNLC No.675500/96 dated 25.1.1996. Complainant filed the complaint with the grievance that while discharging contractual and statutory obligations, the aforesaid transactions, inter alia suffered from the following deficiencies: (i) Delay on the part of OP-3 in transmitting to OP-2 the reimbursement claim. (ii) No confirmation from OP-2 regarding forwarding of the GR Form to the Exchange Control Department of the Reserve Bank of India. (iii) Deficit of Rs.86,737/- as only a sum of Rs.14,32,013/- was remitted against total funds of Rs.15,18,750/-. (iv) Arbitrary conversion of the transaction from that in Indian currency to that in US dollars. (v) Adverse movement of foreign exchange rates for the period February-March, 1986 on account of delay and negligence on the part of the OPs resulting in financial loss to the complainant to the extent of Rs.91,368/-. Aggrieved by this, complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission. State Commission, by an ex parte order, allowed the complaint and directed OP-2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.1,88,105/- along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation. On perusal of the order we find that the State Commission, after noticing the facts, allowed the complaint by observing thus : “8. After perusing the aforesaid documents as well as claim of the complainant, we hold that OP No.2 and 3 guilty for deficiency in service jointly and severally and liable to compensate the complainant for the deficit amount of Rs.86,737/- and Rs.,368/- for the adverse movement of foreign exchange rates for the period from February-March, 1986 and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. 9. In the result, complaint is allowed with the direction to OP No.2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.1,88,105/- besides Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. 10. Above said payment shall be made to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.” A perusal of para-8 would show that the State Commission has not recorded any reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. State Commission, which was trying the original complaint, was required to record reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. Since the order passed by the State Commission is bereft of any reasons, the same is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.8.2012. Since it is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the complaint within 6 months from the date of first appearance of the parties. Nothing stated herein be taken as an expression of opinion. Since we are setting aside the impugned order, the State Commission is directed to give an opportunity to the opp.parties to file their reply. | 
