Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/14/150

Saj Flight Service - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab&Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Ahamed

30 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

                           SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR    : MEMBER

                            SRI.VIJU.V.R                   : MEMBER

CC.NO.150/2014 (Filed on : 21/04/2014 )

ORDER DATED : 25.03.2022

COMPLAINANT

          Saj Flight Service Limited,

          Trivandrum Airport, Trivandrum,

          Rep.by its Director of Reji Varghese,

          TC.14/352, Kanjirakattu House,

          Pothujanam Gardens, Kumarapuram,

          Trivandrum – 695 011

          (By Adv.P.A.Ahamed & Adv.Narayan.R)

VS

 

OPPOSITE PARTY

Punjab & Sind Bank,

M.G.Road, Trivandrum – 695 001

Rep.by its Branch Manager

 

(By Adv.Thomas.P.Jacob)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR  :MEMBER

1.       The Complainant was having a catering unit near airport, Thiruvananthapuram. The said premise was vacated and the unit was closed down. The complainant was having a current account with the opposite party bank. During the period when the unit was functioning the complainant had availed a bank guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) for production before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram during 2004. The same was renewed from time to time and was finally renewed on 30.10.2012 upto 29.10.2013. At the time of renewal in 2012, the complainant had offered a fixed deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) as lien. From 2013, since the unit had stopped functioning the complainant decided not to renew the bank guarantee and sought for revocation of the same with return of fixed deposit. Hence the original of the bank guarantee was returned to the opposite party bank and request was made to release the fixed deposit. The period of validity of the bank guarantee was also nearing the end at the time of making of such request. Initially the opposite party asked the complainant to wait till the end of October for revocation of the same. However, even after the period of bank guarantee was over, the opposite party refused to release the lein. Hence a lawyer’s notice was issued on 31.10.2013, calling upon the opposite party to release the fixed deposit receipts. The opposite party bank replied on 11.11.2013 stating that the bank guarantee is not cancelled and that it is still inforce. The complainant was also directed to obtain a letter of discharge from the commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The period of validity of the present bank guarantee had come to an end of 29.10.2013. The original bank guarantee has also been returned to the bank. Hence there is no question of discharge and the bank guarantee period had come to an end. Hence the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman seeking redressal of their grievances. The Banking Ombudsman stated that the complainant is at liberty to approach any other Forum for the redressal of their grievances. Hence the complaint. 

2.       Opposite party filed version stating that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The issuance of bank guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) in favour of the Commissioner of Customs was issued by the bank at the request of the complainant is admitted. It was renewed from time to time by the complainant. While the bank guarantee was in force the bank received a letter from the beneficiary that is Commissioner of Customs dated 24.09.2013 not to release the bank guarantee issued to the complainant. Since the above communication was received during the bank guarantee period bank is not in a position to release the bank guarantee. As such the opposite party requested the complainant company to obtain a discharge from the beneficiary commissioner of central excise and Customs so as to take steps for releasing bank guarantee. The opposite party never adopted any unfair trade practice as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party so as to have a cause of action for the complaint.

          Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Exts. P1 to P5 marked from the side of the complainant. Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Both parties filed argument notes.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issue 1 & 2

The question of maintainability of the complaint was raised by the opposite party bank. It was treated as a preliminary issue and after hearing both sides the complaint was found maintainable as per order dated 13.02.2015. As per Ext.D3 dated 24.09.2013 the letter to the opposite party stated that an arrears of revenue case arising out of order in 3/2004 dated 23.07.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Trivandrum and misc. order no.1/2013 dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin for an amount of Rs.12,37,479/- along with interest in pending recovery against the complainant. The bank guarantee was executed by the party in compliance with an order dated 17.09.2004 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. "The matter is pending before Hon’ble High Court" and any attempt to release the B.G would perhaps invite contempt of court. Therefore you are hereby requested not to release the B.G and renew the same till the case is finally disposed off by the Court".

              As per the agreed terms opposite party requested the complainant to obtain a discharge from the beneficiary Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. So as to take steps for releasing bank guarantee. But the complainant never obtain any discharge of original bank guarantee given to the beneficiary Customs Department. The complainant not produced evidence to discharge the opposite party by Custom and Central Excise Department.

              In view of the above discussions we find that the complainant miserably failed to prove his case.   

                   In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to costs.

                   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 25th day of March 2022.

 

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                          PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                          VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.150/2014

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of the minutes from Saj Flight Services Pvt Ltd

Ext.P2                   - Copy of bank guarantee

Ext.P3                   - Copy of legal notice dated 31.10.2013

Ext.P4                   - Copy of advocate letter dated 11.11.2013

Ext.P5                   - Copy of complaint against Punjab & Sind Bank

List of witness for the opposite party - NIL

Exhibits for the opposite party

Ext.D1                  - Copy of request letter dated 30.12.2012

Ext.D2                  - Copy of guarantee

Ext.D3                  - Copy of letter dated 24.09.2013

Court Exhibits      - NIL

 

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

PRESIDENT