The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was issued a Letter of Credit LC bearing no. 141208011292 dated 07.09.2008 for an amount of dollar 13,800 towards the proceeds for his exporting coal to M.s. Suma Enterprises, Senpara, Shibgonj, Sylhet Bangladesh and the said LC was advised through OP No. 3 on 29.10.2008.

 The complainant was issued a payment instruction dated 26.11.2008 by the Dhaka Bank Limited in favour of Standard Chartered Bank; Kolkata Branch, India OP1 through Standard Chartered Bank, Dhaka and OP No.1 was mentioned as the beneficiary of the said amount. After a lapse for more than one month when the proceeds of the said LC was not credited in the current account of the complainant maintained with OP 3 i.e Syndicate Bank, Shillong, the Complainant addressed a letter dated 23.01.2009 to the OP3 with a copy to OP1 and OP2 i.e., the Syndicate Bank, Kolkata but none of the OPs bothered to reply to the said letter.

 Thereafter OP 3 addressed a letter dated 18.02.2009 to the Complainant stating that the amount advanced against the said LC was outstanding for want of payment and ask the complainant to deposit the same within 15 days. Also the OP3 verbally informed the complainant that OP1 had mistakenly transferred the proceeds of the LC to the United Bank of India instead to the account maintained by the complainant with OP3.

The Complainant then addressed a letter date 19.03.2009 to OP1 with a copy to OP3 to refund the amount i.e., Rs. 27,165 which his Bank OP3 had deducted and also the loss of interest of Rs. 2,28,408 he suffered on the actual amount after the settlement of account with OP3. When no reply from OP1 the complainant addressed a letter to the head office of OP1 i.e., Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai but there was no response from their end. Thereafter complainant addressed a letter dated 26.08.2009 to OP2 seeking clarification on the inordinate in the payment but even OP2 failed to reply. Therefore the Complainant filed this complaint and prayed for an amount of Rs 1,00,000 towards for the lost of interest deducted by OP3 and other costs.
  
Notices were issued to the OPs. OP1 never appeared before the Court. OP2 and OP3 represented themselves and also filed show causes. In their reply OP 2and3 admitted of having received letter dated 23.01.2009 issued by complainant also admitted that letter dated 18.02.2009 was issued to the complainant by them and the same was done as per usual procedure of the bank of giving the notice to the borrower. They also admitted that the complainant had been verbally informed by them that the OP1 had mistakenly transferred the amount of LC to the United Bank of India instead of to the Bank Account of the complainant which he maintained with the OP3. They further submitted that the payment was made to the United Bank of India instead of Syndicate Bank and due to this negligence on the part of OP1 that the complainant had to pay the interest to the OP3 which had deducted Rs 27,165 as surcharge in the usual course of their business. Hence they submitted that there was no negligence or deficiency of services on the part of OP2 and OP3.

Both the parties also filed written arguments.
The OPs failed to filed written argument even after ample opportunities was given.
 
Written Argument filed by the Complainant mentioned that the OPs has failed to deposit the LC receipts in the account maintain by the Complainant with OP3 while OP3 instead of replying to the first letter of the Complainant for depositing the advanced he had taken against the LC deducted an amount of Rs 27,165 as the interest on the advanced. The OPs had failed to entertain when the complainant went to meet them and failed to reply to the correspondences. The crediting of the proceeds of the LC in the account of the complainant normally takes maximum 15 days but in the present case it took more than 3 months which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant suffered monetary loss of the interest deducted and also the interest which he could have earned had the OPs took the matter seriously and work professionally so that the proceeds of the LC were credited in the account of the complainant on time in the right account.

On the basis on documents on record and evidence adduced by both the parties, this Forum makes the following observation
  
1. OP No.1 did not appear in spite of notice issued to them. This Forum proceeded ex parte against OP1. OP2 and OP3 failed to file written argument even though ample opportunities given to them.
2. All the OPs were duly informed by complainant vide letter dated 23.01.2009, 19.03.2009 and 20.04.2009 for non realization of the LC and clarification for the delay in getting payment of the LC but none of the OPs replied.
3. While examining the letter dated 26.08.2009 written by complainant to OP2 for seeking clarification of the delay, it is mentioned that the amount was transferred into the account only on 17.03.2009 i.e., after a lapse of about 4 months.
4.  It is not clear from the contentions of the parties as to whether there was any tie up between OP1 on one hand and OP2 and OP3 on the other in issues related to transfer of credit amongst themselves on the issues related to LC. In absence of such proof it would be difficult to apportion the fault committed by one party to the others.
5. There is seemingly no fault on the part of OP3 to deduct the amount of Rs. 27,165 as interest on the late payment as what they did was based on the standard procedure followed by the banks in their business.
6. The OP3 did inform the Complainant about the wrong crediting of the LC by OP1 to another bank instead of their bank which indicates that they did took some steps to help the Complainant but could not do things beyond their direct control.
7. It is OP1 who is the sole responsible party for the problems faced by the Complainant and who preferred not to contest this case. The fact that the amount was credited to a wrong bank proves negligence on the part of OP1 resulting into hardships to the Complainant.

We are therefore of the opinion that OP1 acted in the negligent manner resulting into deficiency of services to the Complainant. Accordingly they are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 27,165 which OP3 had deducted from the Complainant as interest on the advance drawn and not settled in time by the Complainant. They are also directed to pay an interest on the amount of the LC at the rates prevailing during that time for the period of delay in crediting the amount to the account of the Complainant with the OP3. The period of delay to be calculated by deducting 15 days from the time period actually taken by OP1 to credit the amount into the correct account of the Complainant. We also direct the OP1 to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the Complainant for deficiency in service and negligent act on their part.
The OP1 is further directed to pay the total amount to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
Case disposed off.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was issued a Letter of Credit LC bearing no. 141208011292 dated 07.09.2008 for an amount of dollar 13,800 towards the proceeds for his exporting coal to M.s. Suma Enterprises, Senpara, Shibgonj, Sylhet Bangladesh and the said LC was advised through OP No. 3 on 29.10.2008.

 The complainant was issued a payment instruction dated 26.11.2008 by the Dhaka Bank Limited in favour of Standard Chartered Bank; Kolkata Branch, India OP1 through Standard Chartered Bank, Dhaka and OP No.1 was mentioned as the beneficiary of the said amount. After a lapse for more than one month when the proceeds of the said LC was not credited in the current account of the complainant maintained with OP 3 i.e Syndicate Bank, Shillong, the Complainant addressed a letter dated 23.01.2009 to the OP3 with a copy to OP1 and OP2 i.e., the Syndicate Bank, Kolkata but none of the OPs bothered to reply to the said letter.

 Thereafter OP 3 addressed a letter dated 18.02.2009 to the Complainant stating that the amount advanced against the said LC was outstanding for want of payment and ask the complainant to deposit the same within 15 days. Also the OP3 verbally informed the complainant that OP1 had mistakenly transferred the proceeds of the LC to the United Bank of India instead to the account maintained by the complainant with OP3.

The Complainant then addressed a letter date 19.03.2009 to OP1 with a copy to OP3 to refund the amount i.e., Rs. 27,165 which his Bank OP3 had deducted and also the loss of interest of Rs. 2,28,408 he suffered on the actual amount after the settlement of account with OP3. When no reply from OP1 the complainant addressed a letter to the head office of OP1 i.e., Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai but there was no response from their end. Thereafter complainant addressed a letter dated 26.08.2009 to OP2 seeking clarification on the inordinate in the payment but even OP2 failed to reply. Therefore the Complainant filed this complaint and prayed for an amount of Rs 1,00,000 towards for the lost of interest deducted by OP3 and other costs.
  
Notices were issued to the OPs. OP1 never appeared before the Court. OP2 and OP3 represented themselves and also filed show causes. In their reply OP 2and3 admitted of having received letter dated 23.01.2009 issued by complainant also admitted that letter dated 18.02.2009 was issued to the complainant by them and the same was done as per usual procedure of the bank of giving the notice to the borrower. They also admitted that the complainant had been verbally informed by them that the OP1 had mistakenly transferred the amount of LC to the United Bank of India instead of to the Bank Account of the complainant which he maintained with the OP3. They further submitted that the payment was made to the United Bank of India instead of Syndicate Bank and due to this negligence on the part of OP1 that the complainant had to pay the interest to the OP3 which had deducted Rs 27,165 as surcharge in the usual course of their business. Hence they submitted that there was no negligence or deficiency of services on the part of OP2 and OP3.

Both the parties also filed written arguments.
The OPs failed to filed written argument even after ample opportunities was given.
 
Written Argument filed by the Complainant mentioned that the OPs has failed to deposit the LC receipts in the account maintain by the Complainant with OP3 while OP3 instead of replying to the first letter of the Complainant for depositing the advanced he had taken against the LC deducted an amount of Rs 27,165 as the interest on the advanced. The OPs had failed to entertain when the complainant went to meet them and failed to reply to the correspondences. The crediting of the proceeds of the LC in the account of the complainant normally takes maximum 15 days but in the present case it took more than 3 months which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant suffered monetary loss of the interest deducted and also the interest which he could have earned had the OPs took the matter seriously and work professionally so that the proceeds of the LC were credited in the account of the complainant on time in the right account.

On the basis on documents on record and evidence adduced by both the parties, this Forum makes the following observation
  
1. OP No.1 did not appear in spite of notice issued to them. This Forum proceeded ex parte against OP1. OP2 and OP3 failed to file written argument even though ample opportunities given to them.
2. All the OPs were duly informed by complainant vide letter dated 23.01.2009, 19.03.2009 and 20.04.2009 for non realization of the LC and clarification for the delay in getting payment of the LC but none of the OPs replied.
3. While examining the letter dated 26.08.2009 written by complainant to OP2 for seeking clarification of the delay, it is mentioned that the amount was transferred into the account only on 17.03.2009 i.e., after a lapse of about 4 months.
4.  It is not clear from the contentions of the parties as to whether there was any tie up between OP1 on one hand and OP2 and OP3 on the other in issues related to transfer of credit amongst themselves on the issues related to LC. In absence of such proof it would be difficult to apportion the fault committed by one party to the others.
5. There is seemingly no fault on the part of OP3 to deduct the amount of Rs. 27,165 as interest on the late payment as what they did was based on the standard procedure followed by the banks in their business.
6. The OP3 did inform the Complainant about the wrong crediting of the LC by OP1 to another bank instead of their bank which indicates that they did took some steps to help the Complainant but could not do things beyond their direct control.
7. It is OP1 who is the sole responsible party for the problems faced by the Complainant and who preferred not to contest this case. The fact that the amount was credited to a wrong bank proves negligence on the part of OP1 resulting into hardships to the Complainant.

We are therefore of the opinion that OP1 acted in the negligent manner resulting into deficiency of services to the Complainant. Accordingly they are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 27,165 which OP3 had deducted from the Complainant as interest on the advance drawn and not settled in time by the Complainant. They are also directed to pay an interest on the amount of the LC at the rates prevailing during that time for the period of delay in crediting the amount to the account of the Complainant with the OP3. The period of delay to be calculated by deducting 15 days from the time period actually taken by OP1 to credit the amount into the correct account of the Complainant. We also direct the OP1 to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the Complainant for deficiency in service and negligent act on their part.
The OP1 is further directed to pay the total amount to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
Case disposed off.