APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For Bank of India : Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Advocate For Punjab & Sind Bank : Mr. Pallav Saxena, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Advocate For M/s. Punjab Hide Co. & Ors. : Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate -2- ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These two first appeals have been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.10.2014, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 33/2008, by which the said complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant M/s Punjab Hide Company.

2. The complainant M/s Punjab Hide Company is stated to be a registered partnership firm, engaged in manufacturing and supply of wet glue and finished leather, having office at Amritsar, Punjab and branch office/works at Jalandhar, Punjab and Hapur (U.P.). The complainant is stated to have supplied certain goods to opposite party (OP) No. 3 M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited having their registered office at Goindwal Sahib and Corporate Office at Jalandhar. As a security for payment of the goods, the buyer M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited opened three irrevocable letters of credit in favour of the complainant with OP-1, Punjab & Sind Bank. Credit No. 21/76/03 for a sum of 8,50,000/- was opened on 14.11.2003 with expiry on 10.12.2003. Credit No. 21/80/03 for a sum of 4,00,024/- was opened on 25.11.2003 with expiry on 15.12.2003 and third, credit No. 21/82/03 for a sum of 10,00,787/- was also opened on 25.11.2003 with expiry on 15.12.2003. Under the heading documents required on these letters of credit, it has been stated as follows:-

Documents Required

1. Beneficiarys draft drawn on applicant at 60 days from the date of bill.

2. Beneficiarys signed invoices in 3 copies.

3. Lorry receipt alongwith one copy evidencing goods consigned to PUNJAB & SIND BANK IBD, JALANDHAR showing freight to pay.

4. Insurance on account of applicant.

5. Despatch by IBA approved transport company only.

Under the heading additional conditions, it has been stated as follows:-

Additional Conditions:

1. All banking charges, other than our bank, for beneficiarys A/c.

2. Reimbursement will be made on due date only if documents are received by us strictly in accordance with the terms of L/C. ----------------------------------

3. The OP-2 Bank of India is the collecting bank on behalf of the complainant M/s. Punjab Hide Company. It has been stated that the complainant sent some goods to OP-3 as per terms of contract between them and the said goods were received and acknowledged by it. They issued two certificates dated 28.11.2003 and one letter dated 2.12.2003, saying that the goods dispatched under the letter of credit had been received by them.

4. The complainant, after the dispatch of the goods and receipt of the same by the OPs negotiated the letters of credit, amounting to a total of 22,50,811/- with OP-2 Bank of India being its banker and the OP-2, vide its letter dated 06.12.2003 submitted the required documents to OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank for getting the letters of credit honoured. On the other hand, the complainant got the letter of credit discounted on 27.01.2004 for a sum of 20 lakh from the OP-2 Bank of India and in the process, paid a commission of 2,50,811/- to the said bank.

5. The complainant was then informed by OP-2 that the OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank had returned the letters of credit alongwith original documents vide their letter dated 25.02.2004 which was received by the OP-2 on 06.03.2004. The OP-1 returned the documents on the ground that these were not accompanied by a lorry receipt and the goods were not dispatched through IBA (Indian Banking Association) approved transport company. The OP-2, Bank of India sent reply to OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank vide letter dated 08.03.2004 and requested them to reconsider its decision in view of the fact that the consigned goods had been received by the OP-3 buyer. The OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank replied vide letter dated 18.03.2004 that they had taken-up the documents, purely on collection basis and in case, the payment was received from the OP-3 buyer, the same shall be sent to OP-2 Bank of India. Further, the OP-2 Bank of India, debited the account of the complainant with a sum of 20,27,521/- towards the discounted value and interest on the same. The complainant served notice dated 07.03.2005 upon OP-1&2 banks, alleging deficiency in service on their part and acting against banking practices. The complainant also filed complaint against OP-1 & 2 with the Banking Ombudsman, which conveyed to them vide letter dated 14.12.2005 that in view of the discrepancies pointed out by the OP-1 Bank, they were not pursuing the matter further. The said decision of the Ombudsman was challenged by the complainant by way of a writ petition No. 13045/2006 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Vide order dated 14.12.2006, the Honble High Court allowed the Writ Petition and remitted the matter back to the Banking Ombudsman to decide the same as per law. However, the Banking Ombudsman rejected the complaint vide their order dated 23.03.2007. The complainant again filed a Writ Petition No. 3984/2008 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.03.2008 of the High Court and liberty was given to the complainant to avail other alternative remedies. The complainant filed the present consumer complaint dated 28.05.2008 before the State Commission, seeking directions to OP-1 & OP-2 Banks jointly and severally to honour the three letters of credit, amounting to 22,50,811/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the due date of their payment till realisation and also demanded a sum of 1,50,000/- for mental harassment etc.

6. In the reply filed before the State Commission, the OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank stated that they had rejected the documents submitted by the complainant through their Bank, OP-2 and returned the same, as the payment had not been made by OP-3 buyer, even on collection basis. The OP-2 Bank returned the documents through letter dated 03.09.2004 to the complainant. The cause of action had, therefore, occurred at the most in favour of the complainant on 03.09.2004. It was, therefore, their duty to file the consumer complaint within 2 years of the cause of action, i.e., by 03.09.2006 as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was submitted that the order dated 14.03.2008 passed by the High Court or the order of the Ombudsman does not imply that the period of limitation had been extended. The OP-1 also stated that the issuance of letter of credit creates a contractual relationship between the parties and hence, the complainants if aggrieved, could have gone to the Civil Court for seeking remedy. The OP Bank asserted that under the law of letter of credit, the Bank deals with documents only and not with the goods and as such, the receipt of goods by OP-3 had no relevance. For the failure of the complainant to submit the documents as per clause 3 & 5 of the list of documents, the complainant was not entitled for the payment of the amount under the letters of credit.

7. In their written reply before the State Commission filed by OP-2 Bank of India also, it was stated that the complaint was barred by limitation. The cause of action had arisen on 14.11.2003 and 25.11.2003, whereas the complaint was filed in May 2008. It is also stated that the amended complaint was filed on 06.12.2012, which was hopelessly time barred. Further, since complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the matter, only a civil court was competent to entertain the matter. The Bank of India asserted that there was no allegation of deficiency in service on their part. It was also stated in the complaint itself that the OP-2 Bank of India had sent appropriate reply to OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank, requesting them to honour the letters of credit and to reconsider their decision. The consumer complaint against the Bank of India, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.

8. The State Commission after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order and directed as follows:-

(i) OP No. 2 to refund 70% of sum of 3,50,811/- to the complainant; (ii) of the balance amount of OPs 20 lacs, 30% will be paid to the complainant by OP Nos. 1 & 70% of that by OP No. 2 alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt of payment; (iii) OP No. 2 will refund the interest, which was earned by OP No. 2 on a sum of 22,50,811/- till the date he presented the DOCs to OP No. 1. (iv) OP Nos. 1 & 2 are further ordered to pay 50,000/- in equal share as compensation on account of harassment to the complainant for not clearing their DOCs and (v) OP Nos. 1 & 2 pay 11,000/- as litigation expenses in equal shares.

9. From a perusal of the pleadings, it is essentially made out that according to the complainant, the OP-1 Bank should have honoured the letters of credit and made payment to them, keeping in view the fact that the buyer had received the goods in question. However, the stand of the OP-1 Bank is that the complainant should have provided the documents, strictly in accordance with the conditions mentioned on the letters of credit itself. On their failure to do so, the OP-1 Bank was not liable to make payment to them, unless the said payment had been received from the OP-3 Buyer. In so far as the role of OP-2 Bank is concerned, the said Bank discounted a sum of 20 lakhs in favour of the complainant initially, but when the money was not received from the OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank, they debited the account of the complainant with sum of 20 lakh alongwith interest. It is to be seen, therefore, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2 Bank.

10. The learned counsel for the parties were heard in detail and the record of the case has been examined with their assistance.

11. During arguments, the learned counsel for OP-2 Bank of India submitted that there was no question of any deficiency in service on their part. They had discounted the letters of credit in favour of the complainant to the extent of 20 lakh, anticipating that the said money shall be forthcoming from the OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank. However, when the OP-1 Bank refused to pay the amount in question, they debited the account of the complainant with 20 lakhs alongwith interest. The Bank had not committed any illegal act in making the debit of the said amount. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint against them was hopelessly time-barred, since the cause of action had arisen to the complainant as early as in 2005. On 07.03.2005, the complainant had sent a legal notice to OP-1 & OP-2 Banks. However, the complaint filed by them in the year 2008 was clearly barred by limitation. In December 2012, they filed an amended complaint, saying that they come under the definition of consumer as they had indulged in the sale-purchase activity to earn their livelihood only. The learned counsel argued that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were not applicable in this case, because the transaction in question was a commercial one and there is no evidence on record to say that the complainants had done the transaction for earning their livelihood only. The OP-2 Bank had taken this plea in their written statement filed before the State Commission as well. The learned counsel stated that the order passed by the State Commission was clearly perverse in the eyes of law, because direction had been given to OP-2 Bank of India to refund 70% of the sum of 3,50,811/- to the complainant and also 70% of the amount of 20 lakh to the complainant alongwith interest. The OP-2 has also been asked to refund the interest earned by them on the sum of 22,50,811/-. The learned counsel submitted that these directions were totally absurd in the eyes of law as the role of OP-2 Bank was to act as a collecting agent on behalf of their client, i.e., the complainant. The money, in question, or the goods never came to their hands, rather they had paid a sum of 20 lakh to the complainant, which had to be debited later on, due to non-release of money by the OP-1 Bank.

12. The learned counsel for the OP-1 Punjab & Sind Bank submitted that the transaction between the complainant, Punjab Hide Company and the buyer, Bawa Shoes Limited was purely a commercial transaction and hence, the consumer law was not applicable in the present case. The learned counsel further stated that when they received the concerned documents from the OP-2 Bank of India, they discovered that the same were not in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the letter of credit. They had, therefore, no alternative but to return these documents to the Bank of India, as it was the duty of the complainant to ensure that the mandatory conditions were duly followed. The learned counsel stated that had they received the money from the buyer, Bawa Shoes Limited, they would have remitted the same to the complainant via their collection Bank. However, despite making request to OP-3 vide letters dated 26.12.2003 and 19.01.2004, no payment was made by OP-3. There was no alternative, therefore, but to return the documents to the Bank of India. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in , in United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India & Ors. [1981 (2) SCC 766 ] which it has been stated as under:- Bankers commercial credits are almost without exception everywhere made subject to the code entitled the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits, by which the General Provisions and Definitions and the Articles following are to

apply to all documentary credit and binding upon all parties thereto unless expressly agreed

. A banker issuing or confirming an irrevocable credit usually undertakes to honour drafts negotiated, or to reimburse in respect of drafts paid, by the paying or negotiating intermediate banker and the credit is thus in the hands of the beneficiary binding against the banker. The credit contract is independent of the sales contract on which it is based, unless the sales contract is in some measure incorporated. Unless documents tendered under a credit are in accordance with those for which the credit calls and which are embodied in the terms of the paying or negotiating bank, the beneficiary cannot claim against the paying bank and it is the paying banks duty to refuse payment. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in , in

Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.

[2011 SCC OnLine NCDRC 130] which it has been stated as under:-

Having considered the entire material and the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties, the irresistible conclusion is that the discrepancies pointed out by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 - bank were based on the correct application of the instructions contained in UCP 500. The discrepancies were not removed/reconciled promptly or within the currency of the L.C. and, therefore, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have done no wrong in not releasing the payment under the L.C. established by the opposite party No. 4. On the face of the said discrepancies, the bank had not only the right but duty to refuse payment as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India (supra). In our opinion, the bank cannot be faultered for not releasing the payment of the invoices. We, therefore, hold that the complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1

and 2. The learned counsel further argued that they had no mechanism to compel OP-3 to make the payment in question. Further, the complaint was clearly barred by limitation, because the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court does not extend the limitation at all. In their reply to the consumer complaint, they had taken up this plea before the State Commission also, but the said Commission did not record any finding to that effect. The State Commission had also not given any finding on the issue, that for breach of contract between the parties, the remedy was there before the Civil Court only. The learned counsel further argued that the OP-1 was not a service provider of the complainant in any manner and hence, they were not liable to make any payment to the complainant.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent-1/complainant Punjab Hide Company, argued that the goods supplied by them had been admittedly received by the buyer/OP-3. Since the said buyer had opened the letters of credit (LC) with the Punjab & Sind Bank, the payment for the goods should have been made by the said Bank to the complainant. His collecting bank, the Bank of India had submitted the necessary documents to the Punjab & Sind Bank on this behalf. The complainant also got the LC discounted for 20 lakh after making payment of charges to the Bank of India. The learned counsel further argued that the discrepancy in the documents submitted as pointed out by the Punjab & Sind Bank had not been brought to their notice, which showed that both the Banks had colluded with each other, in denying payment to the complainant. Had the banks informed the complainant about the deficiencies, the complainant could have made efforts to have them rectified. The learned counsel further argued that the complainant had approached the banking ombudsman, the Honble High Court and the Reserve Bank of India also to have his grievance redressed. However, the Ombudsman vide their order dated 23.03.2007 had refused to grant relief to them, saying that the Punjab & Sind Bank was within their rights to deny the liability under the LCs in question, when the documents submitted were discrepant and were not as per the terms and conditions of the LCs. The Ombudsman also held that the Bank of India was also not liable in the matter. An appeal made to the Reserve Bank of India against the order of the Ombudsman had been disallowed vide letter dated 13.06.2007, saying that there was no provision for appeal under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2002. However, the Honble High Court vide order dated 14.03.2008 had given them the liberty to approach the Civil Court or before any other forum. The complainant had thus filed the consumer complaint in question. The complaint was protected on the issue of limitation under section 14 by virtue of the order passed by the Honble High Court. The learned counsel reiterated that since the purchaser had received the goods, the issue of lorry receipts etc. was not relevant in the matter.

14. In response, the learned counsel for the Bank of India stated that the complainant should have filed Civil Suit against the buyer M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited as observed by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the order dated 14.03.2008. The BOI was not liable in any manner because they had not received any money from the buyer or the Punjab & Sind Bank.

15. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn attention to an order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation , saying that the & Anr. vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited [2009 (III) SCC 240] complainant was covered under the definition of consumer under section 2(1)(d) read with section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission in

Central Bank of India vs. Om Sons Wires (P) Ltd.

, saying that in cases of letter of credit, bank could not refuse payment by [2007 (1) CLT 407] taking vague pleas except in cases of established fraud. Further, in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Quality , it was held by this Commission that in a dynamic Foils India (P) Ltd. [2008 (2) CLT 51] situation, the interpretation to a commercial document has to be consistent and workability of the L.C. has to be favoured. In

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. State Bank of India &

, this Commission observed that there was deficiency in service on the Anr. [2007 (3) CLT 147] part of the Bank for the delay in communicating to the complainant with regard to the receipt of the letters.

16. The learned counsel for the Punjab & Sind Bank stated in reply that since the consumer fora had no jurisdiction in the matter, the liberty given for section 14 of Limitation Act was not applicable in the present case. Moreover, the State Commission had not even discussed the issue of limitation in the case.

17. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

18. The first issue that merits consideration in the matter is whether the complainant M/s. Punjab Hide Co. comes under the definition of consumer as stated in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been laid down in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as follows:- (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;

19. It is revealed from an examination of record that this consumer complaint No. 33/2008 was filed before the State Commission on 04.06.2008. Later on, an amended complaint was filed on

06.12.2012 and para 18 was added to the complaint which reads as follows:-

18. That the complainant which is a partnership firm is in existence since 1972 and consists of 5 partners namely Ashok Sachdeva son of Shri Jagjit Raj, Rajinder Kumar Bhutani son of Shri Krishan Lai, Mohinder Pal Chawla son of Shri Banarasi Lai Chawla, Hira Lai Chawla son of Shri Banarasi Lai Chawla and Vijay Bhutani wife of Shri Sham Sunder Bhutani. The said partners are engaged in the affairs of the firm exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment.

20. From the material available on record, it is clear that no evidence had been produced in support of the revised version of the appellants that the five partners of the complainant firm were engaged in the affairs of the firm exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. It has not been stated anywhere whether these parties had any other means of earning their livelihood or not. The complainant cannot take advantage of the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr. vs. Ashok (supra), as well. As per this judgment, a company incorporated Iron Works Private Limited

under the Companies Act is covered under the category of person within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) read with section 2(1)(m) of the. However, since the transaction in question is evidently for commercial purpose, the explanation to section 2(1)(d) has to be satisfied before concluding that the complainant comes in the category of consumer. Moreover, it is quite evident that the LC was opened by M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited with the Punjab & Sind Bank for commercial purpose only. In so far as the complainant is concerned, the Punjab & Sind Bank cannot be stated to be a service provider for them. It is clear, therefore, that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

21. The next issue that merits consideration, is the matter of limitation in filing the consumer complaint. It is an admitted fact that the cause of action had arisen to the complainant in the year 2003/2004 and they could have filed the consumer complaint in question at that time. The Bank of India has stated in their written reply that the complaint having been filed in May/June 2008 was barred by limitation. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the Bank that the amended complaint was filed in December 2012 and hence, it was clearly barred by limitation. Even if the liberty as given as per order of the Honble High Court dated 14.03.2008 is taken into consideration, the amended complaint was still, clearly barred by limitation. The complainant has also not advanced any reason, explaining as to why they could not file the complaint, when the cause of action is stated to have arisen. It is clear, therefore, that the amended complaint filed in December 2012 by which the complainants tried to explain that they were covered under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is clearly barred by limitation.

22. Now coming to the main issue of making payment to the complainant by the Punjab & Sind Bank as per LC, the said Bank has stated categorically that the Bank was not supposed to make payment to the complainant unless the conditions laid down in the LC were fully complied with. They have stated that the dispatch was not made through IBA approved Transport Company. The complainant has not been able explain anywhere, as to why they could not comply with the said condition. The complainants have tried to take shelter under the plea that since the goods are stated to have been received by the buyer, the condition of IBA approved Transport Company is not relevant. However, even if the goods were received by the buyer, the conditions as stated in the LC stand and should have been complied with by the complainant. Moreover, there is another condition saying that Lorry Receipt alongwith one copy evidencing goods consigned to Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar showing freight to pay. The said documents have also not been filed by the Bank, rather it is being stated that the goods were directly supplied by the complainant to the buyer.

23. The matter has been discussed in detail in the order dated 14.03.2017, passed by the Banking Ombudsman. It has been stated in the said order of the Ombudsman as follows:-

It is an accepted practice that the documents under LC are subject to the rules in UCPDC, An irrevocable credit that provides or negotiation constitutes a definite undertaking of the issuing bank to pay provided that the stipulated documents are and the terms and conditions of the credit are complied with. Upon presented receipt of the documents, the issuing bank has to check them for compliance and in the event of non-compliance, the issuing bank must follow the relevant provisions of UCPDC, in contracts of the present category, all parties concerned deal with , services and/or other performances to which the documents, and not with goods documents may relate. In the instant case, the documents produced by the complainants claiming the amount under the LCs were not in conformity with the . Furthermore, the beneficiary is entitled to his conditions stipulated in the LCs claim only it the documents are drawn in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit. In view of the same, the complainants ought to have been aware of the risk inherent in sending the goods directly to the buyer and that too through as unapproved transport company entitling the banker to deny its liability

24. The above order makes it clear that the complainants have no right to claim the amount under the LC as the documents submitted by them were not in conformity with the conditions stipulated in the LC. The conclusion arrived at by the Banking Ombudsman, cannot be faulted in any manner, from the material available on record.

25. A perusal of the order made by the State Commission reveals that they held the OP-2 Bank of India liable to pay 70% of the amount of 20 lakh and 70% of the sum of 3,50,811/- and also to pay interest on 22,50,811/-. This conclusion of the State Commission is not based on any logical appreciation of the material on record. It is not understood by any stretch of imagination, how the Bank of India earned any interest, when they did not receive any money from the Punjab & Sind Bank. The Bank of India had simply discounted a sum of 20 lakh in anticipation of the money, to be received from the Punjab & Sind Bank. However, when they failed to get the amount from the Punjab & Sind Bank, they debited the account of the complainant with the said sum of 20 lakh and also debited interest on the same. The Bank of India has, therefore, not indulged in any deficiency in service, vis--vis, the complainant in any manner. The direction given by the State Commission holding them liable is without any basis and the same is ordered to be set aside and it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank of India.

26. In so far as the role of Punjab & Sind Bank is concerned, it has been amply made clear from the facts and circumstances on record and from the order of the Banking Ombudsman that in the absence of the relevant documents as laid down in the terms and conditions of the LC, the Punjab & Sind Bank could not have made payment to the complainant and it is held, therefore, that there is no deficiency in service on their part as well, and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission on this ground is also perverse in the eyes of law.

27. It may be observed here that the buyer M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited did not put in any appearance in proceedings before the State Commission and they were proceeded against exparte. In the appellate proceedings before this Commission as well, the said respondent did not put in any appearance, despite publication of the notice in the newspapers. The complainants have also not been explained as to what steps they have taken for the recovery of the money from M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited, in case the said company failed to pay their dues.

28. From the foregoing discussion, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission is perverse in the eyes of law and the same is ordered to be set aside. These two appeals are allowed and the consumer complaint in question stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER