RESPONDENT: M/S SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA} PVT.LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/1996 KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S. SAGHIR AHMAD. J. These are two appeals against the judgments of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 2. The facts on record indicate that the respondent had entered into Contract No.31/89 with a French Firm M/s STE Kolori (for short, 'Buyer') for supply of 1 lac metres of cotton grey sheeting of the value of French Francs 4,37,500/. In due course, the goods were shipped to the Buyer and on 09.06.90, respondent drew two Bills of Exchange on the Buyer for French Franc 3,50,000/ and French Franc 87,500/. The draft mentioned at the top that the Bills of Exchange had to be coaccepted by the Buyer's bank. These documents were sent by the appellant to that Bank on 18.6.90 as requested by the respondent but on 9.7.90, the documents were returned unpaid. However, on the instructions of the respondent, the documents were represented to Banque Leumi, Paris on 13.7.90. On 9.4.91, on the instructions of the respondent, a telex was sent to Banque Leumi, Paris to transfer the documents to another French Bank, namely, Society Lyonnaise De Banque, Lyon, France, and on the same day, fresh Bills of Exchange dated 6.3.91 were sent to the French Bank at the request of the respondent. In these Bills of Exchange, there was no clause for coacceptance by the French Bank which, however, returned the documents unpaid on 9.8.91. 3. On 26th August, 1991, respondent forwarded a fresh set of Bills of Exchange for being sent to the French Bank. The Bills of Exchange, on their face, specifically provided for acceptance by the Buyer and coacceptance by the French Bank. 4. It appears that the Buyer, namely, M/s STE Kolori went under liquidation and an order was passed by the Commercial Court at Lyon, France for winding up the firm. The Court also appointed a Liquidator who wrote to the respondent to file its claim. 5. On 1st January, 1992, Napean Sea Rood Branch of the appellant at Bombay wrote a letter to the French Bank that payment of the Bills of Exchange forwarded to it earlier may be made. The French Bank wrote on 9.1.92 that the Bills of Exchange had not been paid as the Buyer was under liquidation. The Bank also, during course of correspondence, wrote that under French Law, coacceptance by the Bank, was not permissible nor would it have given the Bank Guarantee, even if a request was made in that regard by the appellant for and on behalf of the respondent. It was, at this stage, that respondent gave a notice dated 26.3.92 to the appellant claiming the entire amounts of the Bills of Exchange and subsequently filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short, 'Commission') claiming the value of the goods shipped to the Buyer at France, from the appellant. The Commission by its judgment and order dated 16.11.93 allowed the claim with the direction to the appellant to pay to the respondent French Francs 4,10,000/ with interest (in rupees) at the rate of 18% on the rupee equivalent of the above amount with effect from 31st December, 1989 together with a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as costs to the respondent. It was against this judgment that the claimant filed, in this Court, Civil Appeal No.1737 of 1995. The connected Civil Appeal No.1334 of 1995 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.94 by which the Commission has rejected the Review Petition filed by the appellant. Both the appeals were admitted by this Court on 20.2.95 and are being disposed of by this Judgment. 6. It may be stated that the Commission, while decreeing the claim of the respondent, had relied upon the Uniform Rules for Collection made by the International Chamber of Commerce as also the covering letter of the respondent dated 26th August, 1991 accompanying the two Bills of Exchange, which, according to the Commission, on the face of it, indicated that coacceptance of the French Bank had to be obtained and since the appellant, while forwarding the Bills of Exchange to the French Bank, had not indicated in its letter that the Bills had also to be coaccepted by the French Bank, it acted negligently. This