AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ACCORDING to the complainant on the 10th of July, 1992, he sought from the Opposite Party No. 1 - the Bank "as and by way of an invitation to offer forward foreign exchange contracts''" in respect of payments to be made in pound sterlings and dollars for import of medical literature. The payments were due on various dates from July, 1992 to January, 1993. According to the complainant no offer of the foreign exchange rates under the forward contracts was communicated by the bank and therefore, the complainant never entered into forward foreign exchange contracts with the Opposite Party" Bank. Further, according to the complainant, a foreign exchange forward contract in writing is mandatory under the Reserve Bank of India Exchange Control Manual and the F.E.R.A. and in absence of such a contract, no purchase of currency can be made. The rates communicated by an official of the Opposite Party"Bank on the 14th of July, 1992 for pound sterlings were not acceptable to the complainant and therefore, the latter refused to enter into a forward foreign exchange contract. The complainant, therefore, further refused to accept the confirmation advises from the bank of the exchange bought by them on behalf of the complainant on different dates. Whereas these are described by the bank as confirmation of the foreign exchange purchased or bought, the complainant describes them as "counter offer on the rate at varying rates of foreign exchange in relation to the invitation to offer....."
THE complainant has, therefore, alleged that the Opposite Party"Bank has been guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has asked for reliefs (i) reversal of unilateral debits of October and November, 1992 amounting to Rs. 7.23 lakhs plus interest thereon (ii) the difference in the exchange rates between 10th July, 1992 and 18th December, 1992 amounting to Rs. 4.88 lakhs and (iii) a compensation of Rs. 13.64 lakhs and U.S. $ 3170. We have given the rounded up figures.
THE complaint has been contested by the Opposite Party"Bank. It has contended that the complainant had net issued any "invitation to offer forward foreign exchange contracts". On the contrary, the complainant had instructed the Opposite Party"Bank to do forward booking of foreign exchange pertaining to the relevant invoices.
IT is also contended that the petition involves complex questions of facts and interpretation of laws and the rights and obligations of parties under various Statutes; in particular, it requires the determination of spot rates and forward rates under foreign currency forward contracts. Further, the rates of exchange vary from day to day and even from hour to hour and there is no question of any counter offer being made by the bank. It is not necessary to go into the matter further. We reproduce below one of the letters issued by the complainant to the bank for "forward booking". This is at page 34 of the paper book. "With reference to the above subject, we would like to inform you that we had imported medical books from the above-mentioned party and the payment falls due on 17.10.92 (17.10.92 to 16.11.92) 13765.46. You are kindly requested to forward booking of the same and we shall make the payment on due date which please note. We are enclosing the following documents for your information and necessary action:
AT the threshold, the question that needs to be considered is whether this communication was only an "invitation to offer foreign exchange contract" or a request or an instruction to the Opposite Party"Bank to book foreign exchange forward contracts.
IT is significant that in this communication the words "and by way of an invitation to offer foreign forward exchange contracts" do not occur. The request is only for "forward booking". Consequently, the Opposite Party" Bank denies that there was only "an invitation to offer" and it maintains that there were specific orders for booking of forward foreign exchange contracts. Before the Consumer Forum can proceed with the adjudication of the question whether deficiency in service has been made out, there has to be a contract or arrangement for rendering service for consideration. Only thereafter the question of deficiency in service with reference to that contract can arise.
THE existence of the contract is wholly disputed by the respondent and the issue cannot be decided without elaborate trial and determination of complicated questions which cannot be satisfactorily done in the time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. We, therefore, decline to adjudicate on the merits of this complaint and relegate the complainant to pursue the ordinary remedy by way of a civil suit. The Original Petition is dismissed on the aforesaid limited ground.