BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.16 / 2004 TUESDAY THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2011. V. Jayakumar, S/o. Venkatraman, No.45, Vethilaikara Street, Walajapet, Vellore District. ..Complainant. - Vs – 1. M/s. State Bank of India, Ranipet Branch, Vellore District. 2. M/s. State Bank of India, International Division, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai – 400 022. 3. The Chase Manhattan Bank, State Bank of India, The Chase Manhattan Bank, Mafatlal Centre, 9th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai, India. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 27.6.11, in the presence of Thiru. Pon.Madhavaram, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru.N.S.Ramanathan, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2, and opposite party-3 called absent set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased Demand Draft bearing No.A 3147623 dt. 8.1.01 from ISLAMIC BANK OF BRUNEI for USD 1000 drawn on Bank of New York, Wall Street, New York and payable to the complainant in his NRE Account bearing No.283 maintained with the first opposite party. The said demand draft was deposited on 31.1.01 by the complainant with the first opposite party and the same was forwarded by the first opposite party through the second opposite party for realization to the Bank of New York and credit the proceeds of the draft to the account of the 2nd opposite party which is maintained with the third opposite party and for ultimate credit to the NRE Bank Account No.283 of the complainant. However the said draft was returned with remarks “Refer to Maker” for the reasons that were never communicated to the complainant so far. He re-deposited the said draft on 21.6.01 with the first opposite party for realization and the same was once again returned with an endorsement that the payment was stopped for the reasons that were also never communicated to the complainant. It is to be noted here that the first opposite party debited the proceeds from the account of the complainant which was earlier credited to the complainant by the first opposite party. The complainant during the month of August 2002 at his own cost and expenses made enquiry with the bank of New York which informed the first opposite party of the fact that the said amount of USD 1000 had already been released by the bank of New York to the 3rd opposite party for credit the same into the bank account maintained by 2nd opposite party with the 3rd opposite party for ultimate credit to NRE bank account No.283 of the complainant maintained with the third opposite party. In spite of being fully aware of the above said facts the 1st opposite party as well as 2nd opposite parties with a malafide motive of wrongfully enriching themselves at the cost and to the total detriment to the interest of the complainant and in gross negligence and total lapses and deficiency of service on the part of the first and second opposite parties who refused to give credit for the said USD 1000 to the complainant who is legally entitled to have. In spite of repeated reminder and a lawyer’s notices dt. 3.9.02 and 20.12.02, the 1st opposite party issued a reply notice dt. 22.9.02 through its advocate and threatened the complainant with consequences if the complainant proceeded against first opposite party for realizing his valid dues and claims. 2. The matter was brought to the notice of the Reserve Bank of India. With the kind intervention of Reserve Bank of India, the first and second opposite party having realized that it is impossible to cover up their malafide, unscrupulous and dishonest acts and deeds have credited in the NRE account of the complainant a sum of Rs.47,890/- on 29.10.03 towards the draft amount of USD 1000 and a partly sum of Rs.2093/- towards interest for delay of more than two years caused by the gross negligence, deficiency of service of opposite parties. The opposite parties have enjoyed and enriched themselves with USD 1000 belonging to the complainant for a period of more than two years without any right whatsoever. He was put to severe financial hardship and injury due to the malafide act and misdeeds and had to borrow money at high cost of interest meet his financial requirements. He had also incurred substantial costs towards legal expense, traveling postages, etc for collecting information for tracing the said USDS 1000 and for following up the matter with the opposite parties herein. Since the financial loss, loss of interest, cost incurred in realizing the USD 1000 mental agony and consequent physical indisposition of the complainant as well as his wife were solely and exclusively caused and occasioned by the unscrupulous and malafide deeds and acts, total lapse and deficiency of services, gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant estimates a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and torture suffered at the hands of the opposite parties, a sum of Rs.12,211/- towards interest for the USD 1000 @ Rs.48000/- for two years, for a sum of Rs.30269/- towards interest incurred by the complainant for the borrowal of Rs.50,000/- from third opposite parties and a sum of Rs.10,000/- cost incurred for realizing the said USD 1000, totaling a sum of Rs.1,52,480/-. Therefore the complainant prayed this Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,480/- to the complainant. omplainant for the borrowal of by hte or a sum of Rs.30for hte mpensation for hte complainant as well as his wife were solely 3. The averments in the counter filed the 1st opposite party and adopted by the 2nd opposite party are as follows: The opposite party denies the allegation made in the complaint save and except those that are specifically admitted herein and as regards the rest the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The instrument No.3147623 drawn on the Bank of New York tendered by the complainant for USD 1000 was purchased by the opposite party on 30.1.01 and a sum of Rs.45,782/- was credited into the savings bank account (NRE) PER 01192/050075 of the complainant on 30.1.01 itself. The complainant had also withdrew the sum of Rs.20,000/- out of the amount so credited on 2.3.01 leaving a cash balance of Rs.29,651.29. The opposite party sent the instrument for collection immediately on purchase. The above instrument was returned with an endorsement “Refer to Maker”. The reasons for noting “Refer Maker” by Bank of New York was not known to the opposite party till date. The banking practice is that “Refer Maker” means polite way of declining payment for a cheque. The complainant is expected to approach the drawer Banker i.e. bank of Brunei and ought to have ascertained the reasons for return. As the instrument was not honoured and was returned, the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.26,890/- which was the balance available in the complainant account on 19.3.01 leaving minimum balance of Rs.2,761.29 in his account and recovered Rs.20,000/- separately on 19.3.01 from the complainant. Hence the allegations made in paras 2 and 3 of complaint are not correct. At the request of the complainant the opposite party sent the cheque on collection basis. When the cheque was returned again for the reasons “Stop payment” the opposite party has debited his account a postal charges and the same is the normal banking practice. The reasons for stop payment were not revealed to the opposite party by bank of New York. As the opposite party was acting merely as a collecting agent, the opposite party was not expected to investigate or probe into the matter as to who issued the Stop payment order or why it was issued. It is a matter between the complainant, draft issuing bank and the drawee bank. The opposite party role as a collecting banker comes to an end once the opposite party return the cheque to the complainant. So the allegations made in para-4 of the complaint is not correct. After returning the cheque to the customer, the opposite party closed the issue as the opposite party was not concerned with the complainant approaching the bank of New York or any body else. The opposite party was not aware of Bank of New York passing on any credit to chase Manhattan Bank for eventual remittance to the opposite party till January 2003. Hence the complainant is put to strict proof of the facts alleged in para-5 of the complaint. The allegations so made in para-6 of the complaint are all false even to the knowledge of the complainant. The opposite party was not aware of the payment of the draft by the bank of New York. Only from the notice sent by the complainant, the opposite party was put on notice that the amount was released. The opposite party has no malafide motives and the opposite party has no need to enrich themselves at the cost of the complainant. The opposite party gave credit to the amount of Rs.47,690/- on 28.1.03 as per the advice and also credited in the account of the complainant a sum of Rs.2093/- being the interest released by 3rd opposite party for delayed payment and the complainant had also withdrawn the sum of Rs.40,000/- on 7.5.03 from his said account. The opposite party had not done anything to the detrimental to the complainant’s interest. 4. It was not because of RBI’s intervention that the opposite party credited Rs.47,690/- on 28.1.03 but because the Foreign Department Calcutta received the payment in later part of October 2002 and advised to BHEL Branch of SBI which is dealing with Foreign exchange had received the amount from chase Manhattan Bank in October 2002 only. The interest of Rs.2093/- was also received from Chase Manhattan Bank after our taking up the matter only. J.P. Morgan who is the Indian service provider for 3rd opposite party by his letter dt. 5.12.02 clearly stated that there was error in chase Manhattan in crediting the amount to Foreign Department, Calcutta and the same was sent and credited to Foreign Department, Calcutta only in the month of October 2002. Hence there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in crediting the amount. Further J.P. Margan informed the 2nd opposite party only on 24.1.03 about the credit advise sent in December 2002 to the Foreign Department, Calcutta and on getting the said advise, the credit was given by the opposite party on 28.1.03. The opposite party was not responsible for his incurring legal expenses or traveling expense. The complainant chose to find means of his choice for solving his problems. The opposite party denies the allegations made in para-11 and 12 of the complaint. The opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant and his wife were put to financial loss, loss of interest, incurred costs, suffered mental agony and consequent physical indisposition. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter as this matter involves regular trial and complicated issues. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of SBI, IB Division, Mumbai, instead they assisted the customer in collection of cheque and getting him over due interest also. The opposite party is filing the certified copy of accounts maintained by the bank in the regular course of business and the same may be read as part and parcel of this counter. The complainant is not entitled to claim interest since as per RBI norms no interest would be payable on these type of instruments in case of delay i.e. drafts drawn in foreign money and payable abroad. It is therefore prayed this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties?. b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): - It is admitted facts of the parties that the Demand Draft / instrument No.3147623 drawn on the Bank of New York tendered by the complainant for USD 1000 was purchased by the opposite party on 30.1.01 and a sum of Rs.45,782/- was credited into the savings bank account (NRE) PER 01192/050075 of the complainant on 30.1.01 itself. The above said Demand Draft was forwarded by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party for realization to the Bank of New York and the said Demand draft was retuned with an endorsement “Refer to Maker” At the request of the complainant, the opposite party sent the above Demand Draft for collection, but the cheque was returned again for the reasons “Stop payment”. Thereafter as per the advice the 1st opposite party gave credited to the said draft amount of Rs.47,690/- on 28.1.03 and also credited into account of the complainant a sum of Rs.2093/- being the interest released by the 3rd opposite party for delayed payment. The complainant had also withdrawn the sum of Rs.40,000/- on 7.5.03 from his said account. 8. The complainant contented that after returned the said draft, the complainant during the month of August 2002 at his own cost and expenses made enquiry with the Bank of New York which informed the first opposite party of the fact that the said amount of USD 1000 had already been released by the Bank of New York to the 3rd opposite party for credit the same into the bank account maintained by 2nd opposite party with the 3rd opposite party for ultimate credit to NRE bank account No.283 of the complainant maintained with the 3rd opposite party. Inspite of being fully aware of the above said facts the 1st opposite party as well as 2nd opposite party with a malafide motive of wrongfully enriching themselves for the period of more than two years. Since the financial loss, loss of interest, cost incurred in realizing the USD 1000 mental agony and consequent physical indisposition of the complainant. 9. The opposite parties contended that the complainant is expected to approach the drawer Banker i.e. Bank of Brunel and ought to have ascertained the reasons for return the draft. The opposite parties were was acting merely as a collecting agent and they were not expected to investigate or probe into the matter as to who issued the stop payment order or why it was issued. It is a matter between the complainant draft issuing bank and the drawee bank. The opposite parties were not aware of Bank of New York passing on any credit to chase Manhattan Bank for eventual remittance to the opposite party till January 2003. Only from the notice sent by the complainant, the opposite party was put on notice that the amount was released. Hence the opposite party gave credit to the amount of Rs.47,690/- on 28.1.03 as per the advice and also credit in the account of the complainant a sum of Rs.2093/- being the interest released by 3rd opposite party for delayed payment. Hence there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in crediting the draft amount. The opposite parties were not responsible for h is incurring legal expense or traveling expense. Therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 10. The complainant has not denied the contention of the 1st opposite party that after purchased the USD 1000 from the complainant on 30.1.01 and a sum of RS.45,782/- was credited into the savings bank account (NRE) PER 01192/050075 of the complainant on 30.1.01 itself. The complainant had also withdrew the sum of Rs.20,000/- out of the amount so credited on 2.3.01 leaving a cash balance of Rs.29,651.29. As the Demand draft was not honoured and was returned, the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.26,890/- which was the balance available in the complainant account on 19.3.01 leaving minimum balance of Rs.2,761.29/- in his account and recovered Rs.20,000/- separately on 19.3.01 from the complainant’s savings account. It is admitted facts that after the purchase of the said draft by the 1st opposite party on 30.1.01 and the same was forwarded for realization to the Bank of New York but the said demand draft was returned with an endorsement “Refer to Maker” According to the opposite parties that the reasons for noting “Refer Maker” by Bank of New York was not known to the opposite parties till date. At the request of the complainant the opposite party again sent the demand draft on collection, but the demand draft was returned again for the reasons “Stop payment”, and the reasons for stop payment were not revealed to the opposite party by Bank of New York. It is a matter between the complainant draft issuing bank and the drawee bank. The opposite party role as a collecting banker comes to an end once the opposite party return the cheque to the complainant. After returning the demand draft to the customer, the opposite party closed the issue as the opposite party was not concerned with the complainant, approaching the Bank of New York or any body else. 11. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties stated in their proof affidavit that because the Foreign Department Calcutta received the payment in later part of October 2002 and advised to BHEL Branch of SBI which is dealing with Foreign exchange had received the amount from chase Manhattan Bank in October 2002 only. The interest of Rs.2093/- was also received from Chase Manhattan Bank after they taking up the matter only. J.P. Morgan who is the Indian service provider for 3rd opposite party by his letter dt. 5.12.02 clearly stated that there was error in chase Manhattan in crediting the amount of Foreign Department, Calcutta and the same was sent and credited to Foreign Department, Calcutta only in the month of October 2002. Further J.P. Margan informed the 2nd opposite party only on 24.1.03 about the credit advise sent in December 2002 to the Foreign Department, Calcutta and on getting the said advise the credit was given by the opposite party on 28.1.03. Hence there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in crediting the amount. 12. Based on the letter Ex.A6 dt. 22.1.03 issued by the State Bank of India, International Division, Mumbai, the 1st opposite party gave credited in the NRE account of the complainant a sum of Rs.47,890/- on 29.10.03 and also credited into the account of the complainant a sum of Rs.2093/- being the interest released by the 3rd opposite party for delayed payment. From the perusal of Ex.B2 ledger of State Bank of India Ranipet, statement of account of the complainant it is seen that on 30.1.01 Instrument No.3147623 drawn in the Bank of New York Rs.45,782/- credited in the complainant’s savings account, and also withdrew a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 2.3.01, then on 17.3.01 USD 1000 returned unpaid amount Rs.26,890/- debited from his savings bank account. After two years the said draft USD 1000 sent for collection as per the advise from BHEL 7013 value date 29.1.02, a sum of Rs.47,690/- credited in the complainant’s savings account on 28.1.03, and on the same day interest for delayed payment of USD 1000 on BHEL 7013, a sum of Rs.2093/- credited in his savings account. From further perusal of letter Ex.B5, dt. 5.12.02 sent by the J.P. Morgan to the General Manager (IB-Demostic) SBI stated that there was error in chase Manhattan in crediting the amount to Foreign Department, Calcutta and the same was sent and credited to Foreign Department, Calcutta only in the month of October 2002. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties stated in their Proof affidavit that J.P. Morgan informed the 2nd opposite party only on 24.1.03 about the credit advise sent in December 2002 to the Foreign Department, Calcutta and on getting the said advise the credit was given by the opposite party on 28.1.03 in the savings account of the complainant. It is clear that the opposite parties were not aware of the payment of the draft by the Bank of New York passing on any credit to chase Manhattan Bank for eventual remittance to the opposite party till January 2003. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in crediting the said draft amount. 13. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A8 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 14 POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 15. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 19th day of July 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 31.7.02 - Lawyer’s Notice. Ex.A2- 23.8.02 - Lawyer’s Notice. Ex.A3- 3.9.02 - Lawyer’s Notice. Ex.A4- 22.9.02 - Lawyer’s Notice. Ex.A5- 13.10.03 - Reply Notice. Ex.A6- 22.1.03 - Letter by the 3rd opposite party. Ex.A7- 4.12.02 - Letter by the Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai. Ex.A8- 25.2.03 - Lawyer’s Notice. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 6.11.01 - X-copy of Demand Draft. Ex.B2- -- - Statement of Account. Ex.B3- 2.2.01 - X-copy of Chase Manhatten Bank Cheque return ship, Received on 16.2.01. Ex.B4- 22.6.01 - X-copy of Chase Manhattan Bank’s Cheque return Memo. Ex.B5- 5.12.02 - X-copy of fax by Chase Manhatten Bank. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
