TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'State Commission') under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). 3. Respondent herein was a non-resident Indian employed as a professor of Medical Physiology in the University of Libya from 1975 to 1980. Thereafter, he stayed in Libya till 1992. On 17-8-1979 when the respondent was in Libya he had placed with the bank US $ 5000 in FCNR (Foreign Currency Non-Resident) Account for 63 months at 9 per cent per annum vide LF No. MR-24, DR No. 316/79/39. The deposit was made by the draft drawn on New York Bank. The deposit was to mature on 17-11-1984. The appellant confirmed the deposit. The deposit receipt is annexed to the paper book. In 1984, Reserve ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bank stated that the deposit was encashed prematurely not on 22-11-1979 but on 23-11-1979. A copy of the sale/purchase register was also enclosed by the bank to show that the deposits stood withdrawn on 23-11-1979. Ultimately, on 28-9-1994 the respondent herein preferred a complaint under section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(o) of the Act before the State Commission. 4. In the said complaint respondent alleged that he could not have withdrawn the amount on 23-11-1979 as he was not in India. He relied upon his passport to show that he was not in India. He further alleged that a copy of the original FCNR was put in the safe deposit vault. In this connection, he relied upon the said receipt which states that the deposit receipt memo is retained b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant also denied that the deposit receipt was kept in Safe Custody. In this connection, the appellant submitted that an inquiry into premature withdrawal and the demand for recovery of money after 12 years was beyond time. The bank, however, agreed that in 1984 RBI allowed it to keep FCNR for six years at the rate of 13 per cent per annum. However, the appellant contended that since the amount was prematurely withdrawn, there was no question of reinvesting it for six years at the rate of 13 per cent per annum. The bank denied all factual allegations made by the respondent with regard to reinvestment. By the objections, apart from the question of limitation, the appellant stated that the respondent was not a consumer as defined under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not in India. In this connection, reliance was placed on the endorsement in his passport. Accordingly, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the deposit was reviewed from time to time and, therefore, the complaint was within limitation. Accordingly, the decree in the aforestated terms was passed by the State Commission. 7. Aggrieved by the aforestated decision of the State Commission, appel-lant herein went in appeal to the National Commission under the said 1986 Act. By the impugned order dated 14-7-2004, the findings of fact recorded by the State Commission were confirmed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Hence, this civil appeal comes before this Court at the instance of the bank. 8. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be on the higher side and inflative. The rate of exchange, which is indicative of price and which constantly varies from time to time, has not been examined. This is apart from awarding of the rate of interest at 18 per cent per annum which itself is on the higher side. In the case of Forasol v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission AIR 1984 SC 241 this Court observed that in an action to recover an amount payable in a foreign currency, five dates compete for selection by the court as the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which the foreign currency amount has to be converted into the currency of the country in which the action has been commenced and decided. These dates are - the date on which the amount became due and payable; the d....