PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The Petitioner/Complainant had filed a complaint with the District Forum against the Opposite Parties/Respondents on the ground of deficiency of service. The case of the complainant is that he had an Account no.9060 with Bank of Baroda, Bokaro Steel City Branch and he used to receive the (rupee equivalent of) Euros from Portugal in this bank account regularly. However, the equivalent of 10000 Euros sent from Portugal on 14.5.2003 was credited to this account only on 13.8.2003 and he was informed of the same by the Bank on 7.4.2004 . According to him, he was thus deprived of the use of the said amount during the said period leading to loss of interest (for the said period), besides having to suffer mental agony and inconvenience. According to the complainant, he had also to spend considerable amount in the process. The Respondents, in their written version before the State Commission had taken the plea that ABN Amro Bank, which had sent the said amount received in Euros to Bank of Baroda, Mumbai Branch had not mentioned the name of the Branch of the Bank of Baroda where the funds were to be credited. After perusal of relevant papers, it appears that ABN Amro Bank had mentioned only harkhandaand not harkhand Therefore, the payment could not be credited and even after query was made with ABN Amro Bank, the message again received did not mention the name of its Branch. The Opposite Party came to know the name of the Branch only on 12.8.2003 and a sum of Rs.5,12,069/- was credited into the account of the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties, it was ABN Amro Bank which was deficient in providing service and the complaint. Therefore, suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, ABN Amro Bank and Standard Chartered Bank through which the payment was sent. The District Forum accepted the defence of the Opposite Parties and held that there was no delay on the part of the Opposite Parties in crediting the money in the account of the Complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. This order was challenged by the Complainant/Petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the Appellant/Complainant had an account with the Opposite Party ank and the money was received there alongwith account number and as such the plea of the Opposite Parties that the money received could not be credited to the account of the Complainant because of not mentioning the name of the Branch of the Bank, is not tenable. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the State Commission ordered the Opposite Parties/Respondents Bank to pay Rs.5000/- by way of compensation to the Appellant/Complainant. This order is the subject matter of challenge in revision by the Petitioner/Complainant. We have heard Counsel appearing on behalf of both sides. According to the Petitioner, the Complainant had lost interest for three months which, @ 12% per annum on Rs.5,12,069/-, comes to about Rs.15,000/- and in addition the Petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.24,363/- on correspondence, etc. He further states that the Complainant is entitled to costs. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the complaint was bad for non-joinder and there was no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties inasmuch as the name of the Branch of the Opposite Party-Bank where the amount was to be credited had not been mentioned by the transmtting Bank and it was only on 12.8.2003 that the said information was received and the amount was credited on the very next day into the account of the Complainant. We have gone through the record. In para8 of the written version, the Opposite Parties have stated that after perusal of relevant papers, it appears that ABN Amro Bank had mentioned only harkhandaand not Jharkhand and therefore Opposite Party no.2 failed to understand to which of the Branches the fund was to be sent. The Petitioner had placed documents in connection with the transfer on the record of this revision. At page 26 and 27 of the paper book, there is copy of a communication showing that the sender Bank ABN Amro had sent through Standard Chartered Bank the said amount to Bank of Baroda, Mumbai mentioning the name of the customer Manuel Antonio Anuciacao having account with 57B, Iharkhanda and the account number (9060) of the customer. At page 30 is a copy of a letter from Standard Chartered Bank which shows that Standard Chartered Bank had received an ITT for Euro 10000.00 on 16.5.2003 for onward credit to Bank of Baroda, Bokaro Steel City Branch favouring Manuel Antonio Anuciacao and the ITT was subsequently sent to Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vide reference No. 367OT0305160008 for onward credit in the said account . The said reference is at page 33 wherein, besides the name of the customer, namely, Manuel Antonio Anuciacao and his account number 9060, there is mention of Bokaro Steel City, Iharkhanda. This communication is dated 16.5.2003. At page 32 is a copy of the communication dated 15.5.2003 wherein again all these details including Bakaro Steel City Branch Iharhanda is mentioned. There is also similar communication at page 34 of the record where the same details are mentioned. At page 36 is a copy of a communication from Standard Chartered Bank informing the Complainant that remittance of Euro 10000 was received by the Standard Chartered Bank on 15.5.2003 and the same was sent to Bank of Baroda, Bokaro Steel City Branch, Iharkhanda on 16.5.2003. Except for harkhanda which should have been harkhand all the details were available with the Opposite Parties for credit of the said amount in the account of the Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties failed to credit the said amount for a period of three months and the same was credited only on 13.8.2003 in account no. 9060 of the Complainant which is clear from the voucher at page 29 of the record. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties in crediting the said amount with delay of about three months and for this period the Complainant would be entitled to interest, besides compensation for mental agony, inconvenience etc., as also reasonable expenses incurred and costs. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant towards the interest loss of three months; a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, inconvenience and harassment which he had to undergo as also reasonable expense of Rs.5,000/- in following up the matter with various authorities as well as costs of Rs.10,000/- throughout the proceedings. The revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The aforesaid amount of Rs.40,000/- in all shall be paid by the Opposite Parties within four weeks of the receipt of the order, failing which it shall carry 12% interest with effect from the date of this order.