Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/264/2014

M. SUBRAMANIAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA, THE CHIEF MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

S. RAJAKUMAR

18 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH          ... JUDICIAL MEMBER

            Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.264 of 2014

(Against the Order, dated 07.05.2014, passed in C.C. No.23/2011,

on the file of  the DCDRF, Chengalpattu)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:   18.04.2022

 

M.Subramanian,

S/o.Murugan,

No.43/57, Kailsanathar Koil Street,

Big Natham,

Chengalpattu 603 002.                                                                                                     … Appellant / Complainant

 

vs.

 

1. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Chengalpattu.

 

2.The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Old Airport Complex,

Airport Branch (Foreign Exchange Dept.),

Meenambakkam BIC:SBININBB 298,

Chennai.                                                                                                                                    … Respondents/OPs

 

    

 

             For Appellant                   :  M/s.Rajkumar

             For Respondents              :  Mr.D.Palanichamy

 

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 31.03.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels appearing for the parties  and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             This Appeal has been filed as against the Order, dated 07.05.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Chengalpattu, in C.C. No.23 of 2011, in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:-

             The daughter of the complainant by name Rohini Subramanian had obtained Educational Loan and, in that regard, they operated a Joint Savings Bank Account under the Branch of the 1^st OP vide No.31304177598 and the complainant was sending money for her higher studies at London to meet the college fee, shelter fee, etc. through the Branch of the 1^st OP/Bank.   While so, on 24.09.2010, the complainant had approached the 2^nd OP for a demand draft to be encahsed in London, but, service was declined by the 2^nd OP stating “demand draft leaf not available”.  Hence, the complainant was forced to go to the SBI, Overseas Branch at the 1^st line Branch, Chennai, for getting the Demand Draft and the same was obtained after facing too many hardships.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the 2^nd OP as directed by the 1^st OP on 15.03.2011, and issued cheque No.70932 for Rs.73,890 (GBP 1000)  and the 2^nd OP debited the amount by collecting necessary commission & postage charges and assuring that the said sum of Rs.73,890 (GBP 1000) would reach the complainant’s daughter within 3 days through A/c. No.34232360 maintained by her at the Bank Lloyds TSB, Watford. But, to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the amount was not credited into the account of his daughter till 31.03.2011.  Hence, he approached the 2^nd OP over the delay in transfer of money, for which, the 2^nd OP, by furnishing a copy of the message report, dated 22.03.2011, re-assured for transfer of the money.   Thereafter, when the complainant again contacted the 2^nd OP over phone, it was replied that the correspondent/National Westminster Bank PLC London rejected and refunded money transfer claim due to insufficient funds.  Once again, on 28^th and 29^th March, 2011, when he enquired the status with the 2^nd OP, he could receive only a rude reply, over which, he personally visited the 1^st OP, who replied that he could have contacted the 2^nd OP in a polite manner.   Due to the failure on the part of the OPs/Bank in transferring the money, the daughter of the complainant was not able to meet out the educational and shelter expenses.  As the said act amounted to deficiency in service, the complainant sought the District Forum to direct the OPs/Bank  to pay him Rs.2.5 lakh towards damages, physical strain, etc. and further to credit Rs.73,890/- into his daughter’s account at London, besides costs of the proceedings.

 

 

             3. The 1^st OP filed a version by stating that, for the educational term loan sanctioned by them for the daughter of the complainant, the joint account was opened, that the complainant had approached them by stating that he needs to remit 1000 pounds towards living expenses for his daughter at London through the Joint SB Account receivable though the correspondent Branch at London; that, as per his request, a Certificate was issued stating about the Joint Account/Sanction of Educational Loan/Verification of source of fund done by them; that having issued notice to both the OPs as well as National Westminster Bank PLC London, the complainant failed to include the said foreign Bank in London as party to the proceedings; that there was no confirmation from the beneficiary/complainant’s daughter as to whether she received the funds or not; and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            

             4.  The 2^nd OP filed a version by stating that, on 15.03.2011, the complainant had approached them with a letter from the 1^st OP and requested to remit 1000 Great Britain Pounds to his daughter who maintains A/c. No.34232360 with the Lloyds TXB, Hert Ford Shire, by filing an application along with cheque No.70392, dated 15.03.2011, for Rs.73,890/-; that the 2^nd OP carried out the transaction on the same day by converting the Indian Rupees from the complainant’s account and a message MT 103 was sent to the correspondent National Westminster Bank; that acknowledgment for the said transfer of funds was also received on 22.03.2011, thus, the 2^nd OP completed its part of services promptly; and that the complainant failed to implead the National Westminster Bank, London, as necessary part to the proceedings, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

      5. In order to prove the claim and counter-claim, the parties filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant marked 12 documents as Exs.A1 to A12, 4 documents were marked by the OPs as Exs.B1 to B4.  The District Forum, after consideration, by holding that the complainant failed both to implead the National Westminster Bank, London, as necessary Party and to confirm as to whether his daughter in fact received the funds or not, concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops/Bank and accordingly, dismissed the complaint, hence, the present appeal by the complainant.

 

      6.  Heard the submissions of the counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

       It is the case of the complainant that, due to the poor service and false hope by the OPs/Bank, there was failure in transfer of money in time, as a result of which, the daughter of the complainant could not meet out the educational and shelter expenses in the foreign country.  In the process of ascertaining the fate of the money transfer, the complainant had to run from pillar to post and was also subjected to physical strain and mental agony due to the reckless attitude of the Bank.  While so, despite the fact that the complainant filed all relevant documents to prove the act of deficiency in service on the part of the Banks, the District Forum miserably failed to consider the same and also the fact that the money was never transferred to the National Westminster Bank and the same is still pending with the OPs/Bank.   According to the complainant, the District Forum wrongly concluded that the daughter of the complainant was a necessary party since, it is the complainant, who suffered mental agony at the hands of the Bank over their act of deficiency in service; thus, it is a fit case for interference by this Commission.  But, it is the assertive stand of the OPs/Bank that they had sent the money to the correspondent Westminster Bank, however, whether it was credited to the account of the complainant’s daughter with the Lloyds TSB or not is not known. It is also their stand that, even after the transfer, in the Account Summary of the Lloyds TSB, London, under Ex.P3, the credit is not reflected; hence, mistake might have happened at the correspondent Foreign Bank/Westminster Bank .

             But, in view of the contrary claims that the money was in fact transferred, that no transfer was ever done and that also, probably, it might not have been credited by the Correspondent Bank/Westminster Bank to the account of Rohini Subramanian with the Lloyds TSB, there remain disputed questions of fact .  While so, as rightly observed by the District Forum, unless the Foreign Bank/Westminster Bank and also the daughter of the complainant are impleaded, proper adjudication cannot be done in the case.  But, the complainant failed to do so.  Therefore, we do not see any infirmity or error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

 

             7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the impugned order, dated 07.05.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Chengalpattu, in C.C. No.23 of 2011.  No costs.

 

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                         S.KARUPIAH                                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      JUDL. MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022.