DOF.30.1.2006

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:   President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:              Member

Dated this, the 20^th day of  April  2010

CC.18/2006

MK.P.Pdadmanabhan,

M.P.House,

P.O.Pariyaram.                                                 Complainant

1. The Regional Manger,

   Syndicate Bank

   Regional Office,

   Fort Road, Kannur.

  (Rep. by Adv.T.Ramakrishnan)

2. M/s.Standard Chartered Bank,                                             Opposite parties

   90, M.G.Road, Fort,

   Mumbai 1.

  (Rep. by M/s.V.Jayachandran & KT.Joseph)

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complainant filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- to the complainant as compensation with interest @12% p.a and the cost of these proceedings.

            The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follow: the nephew of the complainant sent an amount of Rs.50, 000/- on14.7.04 from Australia under Telegraph transfer to his SB Account No.206 of Pariyaram Branch of 1^st opposite party’s bank through the second party’s bank. The DD sent by 2^nd opposite party was encashed on 17.7.04 by the 1^st opposite party. On 16.7.04 itself the complainant went to Pariyaram branch of the Syndicate Bank and made enquiry regarding the receipt of the amount. It was not reached there. Complainant went and enquired several time. The amount was sent for the purpose construction of complainant’s house. Since the personal attempt went in vain complainant wrote letter to chairman of opposite party for to redress the grievances. The document showing the transfer of the amount to the 1^st opposite party was also enclosed in that letter. Telegraphic transfer receipt clearly showed the beneficiary as M.P.Padmanabhan of Pariyaram Branch on 23.2.05, the complainant received a letter from the Pariyaram branch of the 1^st opposite party intimating that the matter is being looked into. On 4.3.05 complainant received another letter stating that they credited the said amount to the account of M.P. Padmanabhan of Kannur. The said amount was not credited to the account of the complainant for along time. Hence complainant could not meet his urgent need and thereby suffered heavy loss and inconvenience. It is false to say that the amount was remitted in the account of another Padmanabhan in the absence of the account details in the draft. The account n umber and the name of the branch were shown clearly in the telegraphic memo. The legal notice was replied with facts against the actual truth. The amount was not remitted in his account till 12.3.05. The opposite party now paid an amount of Rs.867/- towards interest also. The amount so paid is not sufficient to compensate the hardships caused to the complainant. The amount was sent to the complete construction of the complainant’s house. But he could not complete the construction before March. Since the prices of all building materials including cement and hardware items got escalated by the 2004-05 budget the complainant had to spent Rs.50,000/- more in that account. Complaint and his brother had to got 1^st opposite party several time and  subjected to  much sufferings mentally and financially. Hence this complaint.

            Pursuant to the notice opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version separately. What is contended by 1^st opposite party in his version, in brief is given as follows: the complainant went to Syndicate Bank, Pariyaram Branch and made enquiry regarding receipt of the amount, he again went  several time and the amount is meant for his house construction etc. are false. The Telegraphic transfer receipt shows beneficiary as M.P.Padmanabhan of Pariyaram branch of 1^st opposite party is not correct.  The remittance was favouring Syndicate Bank/206 M., P.Padmanabhan, Syndicate Bank, 27/191, Fort Road, Kannur Branch. The S.B account of complainant, M.P.Padmanabhan is maintained at Pariyaram of Syndicate Bank. No where in the advice etc. Pariyaram branch has been mentioned, resultant of which Main Branch, Kannur complied with the order in the draft. The order was to give credit to Syndicate Bank/206 M.P.Padmanabhan 27/191, Fort Road, and Kannur Branch. There is an account holder in the same name of M.P. Padmanabhan in the Kannur Branch. There is only one M.P.Padmanabhan as account holder in Kannur Branch. If the remitter had mentioned the details as Pariyaram branch, this problem would not have occurred. On detecting the error, the amount was credited to the complainant at Pariyaram branch on 12.3.05 with interest of Rs.867/-. M.P.Padmanabhan account holder of Kannur Main Branch is an NRE customer and when the overseas remittance came in his favour, the Bank without doubt credited the amount and intimated to his wife. The amount was withdrawn by her from 5.8.04 to 28.10.05. The wrong credit of the amount came to the light of opposite party on receiving the intimation from the complainant. The allegation that the name of the branch was shown clearly in the telegraphic memo is not correct. The fact is that Standard Chartered Bank did not mention name of branch of Syndicate Bank, Pariyaram Branch in the said DD or in the covering letter. It was mentioned M.P.Padmanabhan, Kannur branch, 27/191 Fort road, Kannur. Hence the amount was credited to M.P. Padmanabhan, account holder of Syndicate Bank, main branch, Kannur. Hence it is only a bonfafide error and not negligence on the part of 1^st opposite party. If at all it is negligence, it is the negligence of 2^nd opposite party and this opposite party cannot be blamed. There is no merit in the complaint. Hence to dismiss the compliant.

            Opposite party filed version denying the material averments and allegations of the complainant. The brief facts of the version filed by7 2ndopposite party are as follows: the second opposite party has received payment from A & Z banking group for onward remittance to the syndicate Bank where the complainant is holding an account.  A demand draft was drawn on the Kannur Branch of the corporation bank to who with second opposite party is having corresponding arrangement. DD was issued favouring Syndicate Bank Account No.206 of Mr.M.P.Padmanabhan. In this case Pariyaram is not a clearing centre, while Kannur is the nearest clearing centre. The role of the 2^nd opposite party is over as son as the DD is issued. The allegation about the 1^st opposite party in crediting the proceeds to the wrong account is not within his knowledge. The first opposite party has credited the amount with interest to the account of the complainant with Pariayram Branch. This being the fact the complainant has not suffered any substantial loss, injury or damage. The Demand Draft was encashed by the 1s opposite party on 17.7.04 and thereafter 1^st opposite arty has became solely responsible for the alleged act and it is to be dismissed against the 2^nd opposite party.

            On the above allegations the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is nay deficiency on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed din the complaint/

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence consist of the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10 marked  on the side of the complainant and oral evidence of DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            The case of the complaint is that his nephew sent Rs.50, 000/- from Australia under Telegraphic transfer on 14.7.04 to his SB account No.206. All enquiries met with failure. The amount was not remitted in his account till 12.3.05. The long delay caused great loss. 1^st opposite party contended that the remittance was favouring Syndicate Bank/206 M.P.Pdmanabhan, Syndicate Bank 27/191 Fort Road, Kannur Branch. The S.B account of M.P.Padmanabhan, (Complainant) is maintained at Pariyaram Branch of Syndicate Bank. There was no mention if Pariyaram Branch in the advice to make the credit. What were mentioned were M.P.Padmanabhan, Kannur Branch, 27/191 Fort Road, and Kannur? There is an account holder in the same name of M.P.Padmanahban in the Kannur Branch. Hence the amount was credited to M.P.Padmanabhan account holder of Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Kannur and his wife subsequently withdrawn that amount. On detecting the error the amount was credited to the complainant’s account at Priyaram Branch on 12.3.05 with interest of Rs.867/-.

            2^nd opposite party contended that 2^nd opposite party has issued a DD drawn on the Kannur Branch of the corporation Bank favouring Syndicate Bank Account No.206 of Mr.M.P.Padmanabhan. The role of 2^nd opposite party is over as soon as the DD is issued.

            Complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with his pleading. 1^st opposite party by his proof affidavit adduced evidence that the telephonic transfer receipt shows beneficiary as M.P.Padmanabhan of Pariyaram Branch of 1^st opposite party is not correct. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Telegraphic Transfer receipt. On Scrutiny of this document Ext.A1 reveals that it has specifically written M.P.Padmanabhan Branch Pariyaram, Kannur. Hence the evidence adduced by the 1st opposite party in through proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination that “the telegraphic transfer receipt shows beneficiary as M.P.Padmanabhan of Pariyaram Branch of 1^st opposite party is not correct” is either lie or a statement without verifying the document Ext. A1.Ext.B1 does not contain any mention about Priyaram Branch. 1^st opposite party did not produce the cheque 821770 attached by standard chartered Bank to make clarity with respect to details of facts regarding the identity of the drawee beneficiary complainant has specifically pleaded that  “Telegraphic transfer receipt clearly showed the beneficiary as M.P.Padmanbhan of Pariyaram Branch of 1^st opposite party”.Ext.A1 proves that T.T.R clearly mentioned the  Branch Pariyaram.

            The evidence reveals that the telegraphic transfer of amount Rs.50, 000/- was on14.7.04. This amount through telegraphically transferred opposite party credited the amount to the account number 206 of M.P.Padmanahbhan only on 12.3.05. Altogether a delay of 8 months. What is the reason for the delay and how far opposite parties 1 and 2 are responsible for this delay is the question now we are concerned. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of Chairman  & MD of the Syndicate Bank by Ext.A2 dt.22.2.05. Complainant averred that he has made enquiry several time right from 16.7.04 onwards but  on failure he sent Ext.A1 to Chairman. It was immediately responded and informed the complainant that the matter was taken up with the Kannur Main branch to ascertain the facts and immediate settlement. However complainant received detailed answer Ext.A4 settling the issue by crediting the proceeds of the Draft to the S.B account of the payee. The Regional Manger in his reply Ext.A4 dt.4.3.05 explained that the covering letter of the draftNo.821770 dt.14.7.04 for Rs.49550/- which was forwarded by standard Chartered Bank to their Main branch Kannur. The said draft has been drawn favouring syndicate Bank/206 M.P.Padmanabhan. Opposite party further says that the payees name and account details were not properly mentioned in the said draft. The S.B account of M.P.Padmanabhan is mentioned at Pariyarm branch of their bank. Nowhere in the draft that was mentioned as a result of which Kannur Branch had complied with the order in the draft to give credit to Syndicate Bank/206 M.P.Padmanabhan, who is an account holder in the same name with Kannur Main branch. It was a notable point that in Ext.A1 ANS Bank clearly noted the name of the Pariyaram Branch but it is a document sent o opposite party No.2. So it has to be taken in account whether the name Pariyaram branch has been mentioned in the document sent by 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite party. It is 2^nd opposite party who sent the DD for the amount to 1^st opposite party. So 1^st opposite party can act only in accordance with the particulars contained in the DD. 1^st opposite party contended that 2^nd opposite party omitted to note the name of the Pariyaram branch where exactly the account of the complainant had been mentioned. Ext.B1 is the DD sent by 2nd opposite party to 1^st opposite party by the order of Payments Division given the particulars of complainant thus: Syndicate Bank/206 M.P.Padmanabhan,

            Syndicate Bank

            Kannur Branch, 27/191, Fort Road,

            670001, Kerala.

            The name of the Pariyaram branch had not been mentioned anywhere. 1^st opposite party specifically contended that there is another account holder in the same name Syndicate Bank/206 M.P.Padmanabhan, who is an NRE account holder of Syndicate Bank, Fort Road, Kannur and thereby 1^st opposite party credited the amount in his account of Kannur Branch. This could have been avoided if the name of the Pariyaram Branch as in Ext.A1 if mentioned in the DD. 2^nd opposite party has the liability to explain this omission to quote the name of the branch Pariyaram. Even then it is doubtful whether 1^st opposite party has scrutinized the DD carefully. Why did 1^st opposite party ignored the number 206. The DD contain Syndicate Bank/206M.P.Radhakrishnan. 1^st opposite party did not make any enquiry on this number 206. 1^st opposite party contended that it is credited to another Padmanabhan but where is the evidence to show that the amount was credited in the name of another Padmanabhan. DW1 in his cross examination deposed that R§Ä¡v In«nb covering lettersâ ]pd¯v ]cn-bm-c¯ ]ß-\m-`-sâ-bm-sW¶p ImWn-¡m³ bmsXmcp tcJ-bpT D­q-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. Account No.206  AXn D­m-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. credit sNbvX ]ß-\m-`sâ Account \T-]À IrX-y-ambn HmÀ½-bn-Ã. Account Number clarify sN¿m³ 2-mT FXnÀI£n Øm]-\-hp-ambn _Ô-s¸-«n-«n-Ã. A\-ym-b-¡m-c\p h¶ Un.Un asäm-cp-]-ß-\m-`-\mWv credit  sNbvX-sX¶p ImWn-¡m³ tcJ-I-I-sfm-¶p-T tImS-Xn-bn lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã.

1^st opposite party has not produced any document to show that the amount of Pariyaram account holder was credited in the name of another Padmanabhan in Kannur Branch. They have also not explained why they ignored the account number. DW1 deposes that he do not know the account number of the person on whose account the amount in question deposited. So also the opposite party did not take care of the number 206 which had been clearly quoted on the fact of the DD sent by 2^nd opposite party to 1st opposite party. DW1 deposed that there was no account No.206 on the covering letter sent by opposite party. Does it mean that if such a number had been given that would have been made use of identifying the account? If so what prevented 1^st opposite party to take care of the account No.206 quoted on DD sent by the 2^nd opposite party. There is no explanation on the part of 1^st opposite arty with respect to above facts. Account number is important same as that of the name of a person.

            Complainant has the case that he has approached the 1^st opposite party several times to make enquiry of non receipt of the amount but there was no result. It is an admitted fact the amount was sent by telegraphic transfer. The urgency of amount cannot be questioned. Such an amount if not received; there shall be certainly enquiry with the bank for which no evidence is required. A man of ordinary prudence can understand what is what under such situation. Complainant’s case is that he submitted written complaint when all the other attempts were ruined. 1^st opposite party contended that the written complaint submitted by the complainant on 22.2.05 was the first complaint they have received. But the action taken there after by the opposite party reveals that they have seriously and sincerely dealt with the problem. If a little more seriousness had been shown in the earlier stage the entire confusion could have been avoided. 1^st opposite party at least could have been made a clarity with respect to the account number 206 with 2^nd opposite party which would have been sufficient enough to get the full particulars of the depositor. In usual course if the account number is changed or create any doubt money transaction will naturally be taken time for clarification. The perusal of documents and analysis  of available evidence leads us to conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

            The next point deserves consideration is whether the 2^nd opposite party is free from liability or not?

On going through the evidence before us it can be assumed that the entire misdeed happened to be taken place only because of the omission in mentioning the name of Pariyaram branch/206 of Mr.M.P. Padmanbabhan. 2^nd opposite party is legally bound to furnish correct details of the particular branch same as shown in Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is a document sent to 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party has no case that it does not contain the name of Pariyaram branch. They have only ignored it. They are of the view that Pariayram is not a clearing centre, while Kannur is the nearest clearing centre. What is mentioned by this statement is not explained by 2^nd opposite party. They have not taken pain to explain it. They have also not explained the reason why they omitted to mention the name of Pariyaram branch. 2^nd opposite party does not consider it as a material fact in this case. No doubt there is deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party and they are equally liable same as that of 1^st opposite party.

            It is fact that complainant submitted written complaint to 1^st opposite party on 22.2.2005. Complainant received the reply very next day itself. Without much delay 1st opposite party sent final letter Ext.A4 on 4.3.05 settling the main grievances of the complainant by crediting the amount in the account of complainant together with paying interest for the period of delay.

            Complainant has not produced evidence to sow his actual loss. Even the price raise of materials also has not been proved. He did not even taken interest to place some evidence to prove that there was such construction work of his house. What is the actual loss that the complainant has been suffered is not proved before the Forum. However, taking in to account that it was an emergent transaction and the natural financial stringency that he had been possibly faced and the mental tension suffered, we are of opinion that a sum of Rs.15, 000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice. The opposite parties  jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. The issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.15, 000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of the consumer protection Act.

                                      Sd/-                                 Sd/-              Sd/-

President                      Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the telegraphic transfer receipt

A2.Copy of the letter dt.22.2.05 sent to OP

A3 & 4.Copy of the letter  dt.23.2.05 & 4.3.05 sent by OP

A5.Copy of the letter dt.5.3.05 sent  to OP1

A6.Memo issued by OP1

A7& 8.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP1 & reply.

A9 & 10.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP2 and reply

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Copy of straight through services payment advice issued by OP

B2& 3.Statement of account in the name of complainant and T.K.Sreeja

B4.Copy of Power of Attorney

Witness examined for the complainant               /forwarded by order/

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.K.V.Goutham                                                     Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur