Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/7/2007

NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

S. RAMASUBRAMANIAM

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

                             BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                        Present:  Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                       Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                           MEMBER

C.C. No. 7 / 2007

                                                                       Dated this the 17^TH day of AUGUST, 2015

Needle Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd,        ]

Represented by its                              ]

Managing Director,                             ]

Mr. T.A. Devagnanam,                        ]  ..  Complainant

Nilgiris                                               ]

 

                   Vs.

1. State Bank of India,                        ]

    Represented by its                          ]

    Asst. General Manager,                  ]

    Commissioners Road,           ]

    Ootacamund – 643 001                   ]

]

2. The Asst. General Manager, ]

    State Bank of India,                        ]

    Commissioners Road,           ] ..      Opposite Parties

    Ootacamund – 643 001                   ]

  

                   This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 24-07-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Complainant:                    -        Mr. Ramesh Subramaniam

Counsel for Opposite Parties 1&2:       -        Mr. V.R. Gopalaratnam

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                 The case of the complainant is that they are engaged in manufacturing of Hand Sewing Needles, Knitting Pins, Surgical Needles and other allied products, and they are maintaining a Current Account with the 1^st opposite party and that the account is operated by them for making payments to governmental organizations. The current account was opened 25 years ago. On 21-06-2006 and 24-06-2006, the complainant had raised two invoices on a company called JAHBALT in South Africa and the total value of both the invoices was U.S. $ 3544. The customer in South Africa had made payment through the State Bank of India, New York on 21-07-2006 and the payment was received immediately by State Bank of India, Ooty. The complainant had been in constant touch with the opposite parties bank about the receipt of the payment; but the opposite parties had subsequently denied the receipt of the payment until 04-08-2006. It was only on   02-08-2006 that the complainant learnt that the amount was received in the opposite parties bank on 21-07-2006 itself which had been lying in the opposite party’s bank since 21-07-2006.

2.       Further, in another incident, the complainant had raised two invoices dated 26-06-2006 valued at U.S. $ 13860-69 on the same customer and their customer at South Africa had made payment through State Bank of New York on 17-08-2006 which was received by the opposite party bank on the same date, but the opposite party bank had been denying the receipt of the same till 05-10-2006. On 05-10-2006 he contacted the Assistant Manager of the opposite party bank / 2^nd opposite party, and he got the response that the payment had not been received; but after about 15 to 20 minutes, a person not disclosing his name contacted the complainant’s banker - State Bank of Travancore over phone and informed that the money had been received by the opposite party bank branch on 17-08-2006. The complainant immediately contacted the Assistant General Manager, and made a complaint about the said delay in the transaction; but no action was taken in this regard.

3.       Another negligence on the part of the opposite party bank is that the bank misplaced a cheque which was deposited with the opposite party bank towards remittances of ESI payment on 18-09-2006 and the cheque was traced out and the above said opposite party bank acknowledged the receipt of the cheque only on 21-09-2006 after several phone calls and personal visits by the complainant.

4.       Even after the issuance of the letter of apology, the opposite parties have not taken steps to issue the endorsed challan for proof of payment.

5.       Further, even for a small transaction with the opposite party bank, it takes half a day which unnecessarily results in loss of precious hours to the complainant and the complainant made several complaints to the opposite party but to no avail. The act of having denied the receipt of payment, after having received the same on two occasions and the misplacing of the cheque amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to compensate the complainant, for the term when the complainant’s money was illegally held by the opposite party bank and the resultant mental agony caused to them which the complainant estimates at Rs.20 Lac and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.

6.       The opposite parties filed version stating as follows:

          In the two transactions alleged in the complaint, the foreign banker remitted the amounts under the bills drawn under LC and such amount was routed through SBI, New York branch and the opposite parties are at Ooty and in respect of the 1^st transaction for U.S. $ 3544 alleged by the complainant, the message was received through the system on 22-07-2006, though the name of the beneficiary was correctly stated, the account number of the beneficiary stated therein did not tally with the current account of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party. The opposite parties contacted the State Bank of Travancore, the complainant’s banker on 26-07-2006 who instructed the opposite parties to remit the amount back to NOSTRO account of State Bank of Travancore with JP Morgan Bank in U.S. New York without converting the amount into Indian Rupee. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 7.       As regards the 2^nd transaction, relating to receipt of U.S.$ 13860-69 was not found in the system on the date of receipt and only when the State Bank of Travancore informed the date of receipt by the 1^st opposite party, the Technical Officer located the message on      05-10-2006 and locating the receipt of the message was only on account of new advanced technical system introduced in the bank, and the said amount was also remitted to NOSTRO account of the State Bank of Travancore with JP Morgan Chase bank.

8.       In both the transactions, the 1^st opposite party acted only as an intermediary correspondent bank for the foreign remitting bank, and there is no relationship of banker and customer between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant.

9.       As regards the other allegations in the complaint of not sending the cheque drawn in favour of ESI deposit with the 1^st opposite party on 18-09-2006, the said cheque was sent to ESI on 21-09-2006 and the delay of two days was due to technical problems surfaced during migration of the bank from the then existing system to an advanced core banking system. The 1^st opposite party apologized to the complainant in this behalf. The complainant has not suffered any loss on this account. The 1^st opposite party made necessary corrections and has taken steps to ensure that no such incident occurs.

10.     As regards the other allegations that a small transaction takes half a day resulting in wastage of precious time, and that there was negligent attitude on the part of the opposite party or that opposite party did not send apology are vague. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

11.     The complainant and the opposite parties filed proof affidavit reiterating their averments. Seven documents were filed and marked as Ex.A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant. No documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties.

 12.    The points for consideration are:

i)        Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties;

ii)       Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties;

iii)      To what relief the complainant is entitled?

13.     Point Nos. i & ii: It is pertinent to note that the complainant has filed Ex.A1 to A7 in support of his contention alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties;

Ex.A1 – is the fax message dated 21-07-2006 from the customer forwarded to State Bank of Travancore, Ooty;

Ex.A2 – is the copy of the Email sent to customer dated 5-8-2006 to SBT, Ooty;

Ex.A3 is the copy of the Email dated 18-08-2006 sent by SBT, Ooty to Needles Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, regarding settlement advice;

Ex.A4 – is the copy of the Email dated 30-08-2006 from the customer and copy of the fax message forwarded to SBT, Ooty;

Ex.A5 – is the copy of the Email dated 17-10-2006 received from SBT, Ooty – regarding settlement advice;

Ex.A6 – is the copy of the Email dated 04-10-2006 from the customer and copy of the Fax message forwarded to SBT, Ooty;

Ex.A7 is the legal notice dated 16-11-2006 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties with acknowledgement cards.

14.     The complainant has made several allegations against the opposite parties attributing negligence and deficiency in service. The 1^st allegation is that on 21-06-2006 and 24-06-2006 he had raised two invoices on a company in South Africa and the customer in South Africa made payment in U.S.$ 3544 through the State Bank of India, New York on 21-07-2006 and the payment was received by the opposite parties on the same day i.e. 21-07-2006 itself, but the opposite parties did not disclose this fact, but suppressed this fact until 04-08-2006 and the money had been lying in the opposite parties bank since 21-07-2006 till 04-08-2006.  

15.     The 2^nd allegation of the complainant is that U.S.$ 13860-69 was sent by his customer in South Africa through the State Bank of New York on 17-08-2006 and it was received by the opposite party bank on the same day, but the opposite parties had been denying receipt of the same till 05-10-2006, and only after contacting the Assistant General Manager, he came to know that the amount had been received by the opposite party bank on 05-10-2006 itself.

16.     The further allegation is that the opposite parties misplaced his cheque deposited on 18-09-2006 and the cheque was traced out only on 21-09-2006, after making several phone calls, and personal visits by the complainant.

17.     Yet another allegation is that even for a small transaction with the opposite party bank, it takes half a day resulting in loss of precious time.

18.     However the complainant failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove his case against the opposite parties. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A7 alone, we cannot conclude that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the absence of sufficient materials we hold that the contentions / allegations are not substantiated, and that the complainant has not made out his case of negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

19.     On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the complainant has not established his case of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

20.     For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and that the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties, and the points are answered accordingly.

21.     Point No.iii.: In view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in the complaint, and the point is answered accordingly.

22.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 P. BAKIYAVATHI                               J. JAYARAM          

 MEMBER                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER     

List of Documents filed by the Complainant

Ex.A1          21-07-2006  Copy of the Fax message from the customer

                                      forwarded to SBT, Ooty                                    

Ex.A2          05-08-2006  Copy of the Email sent by the customer to

                                       SBT, Ooty

Ex.A3          18-08-2006  Copy of the Email sent by SBT, Ooty to

                                      Needles Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. –

                                      Regarding the settlement advice.

Ex.A4          30-08-2006  Copy of the Email from the customer & copy

                                      of the fax message forwarded to SBT, Ooty

Ex.A5          17-10-2006  Copy of the Email received from SBT, Ooty –

                                      Regarding the settlement advice.

Ex.A6          04-10-2006  Copy of the Email from the customer & copy

                                      of the fax message forwarded to SBT, Ooty

Ex.A7          16-11-2006 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the

                                      opposite parties with ack. Cards.

List of Documents filed by the opposite party:   Nil.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI                                          J. JAYARAM          

       MEMBER                                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER