IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE      28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

Present: -  Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

   Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

                                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.27/2016

A.B.SunilKayal,

77 years old, S/o AbubakarKunju,

Canadian citizen,

Permanently residing at 10639

Youngworth Road, Culver City,

California 90230, U.S.A. is rep.by his brother

And power of attorney holder A.SafarKayal, aged 60,

S/o AbubakarKunju, Kukkoo Villa, Thekkumbagam,

Paravur 691319, India.

(By Adv.Francy John)                                                                  :           Complainant           

V/S

1. Sunil Raj, Chief Manager,

State Bank of Travancore, South Paravur,

Kollam 691 301.

(By Adv.N.Anvardeen)

2. The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of Travancore, Region-I, Zonal Office,

Arpan Towers, Kadappakkada, Kollam 691 008.                  :           Opposite parties

    (By Adv. N.Anvardeen)

3. The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of Travancore, Region-I, Zonal Office,

Arpan Towers, Kadappakkada, Kollam 691 008.

(By Adv. N.Anvardeen)

4. State Bank of Travancore, Palayam,

Thiruvananthapuram, Rep.by its General Manager

(By Adv. N.Anvardeen)

Addl.5.    The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,

South Paravur branch

(As per order in IA-334/18 Addl.5 impleaded)

(By Adv. N.Anvardeen)

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by A.SafarKayal, the brother and Power of Attorney holder of the original complainant A.B.SunilKayal.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The original complainant A.B.SunilKayal born in India is a Canadian citizen and permanent resident in the United States.  On July 06, 2015, the complainant sent US$500,025(five hundred thousand twenty five US dollars)  to the State Bank of Travancore (SBT) to open a one year nonresident Indian rupee term deposit account at its branch in South Paravur.  According to the complainant prior to sending the dollars to the SBT, the complainant and his brother had several phone and email discussions with the opposite partys’.  The main issues discussed by complainant and his brother with the 1^st opposite party were: (1) exchange rate, (2) interest rate, (3) convertibility and (4) the SBT’s commission or profits for converting the complainant’s dollar into rupees.  In those discussions the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant and his brother that :

1.  The exchange rate might be between Rs.63.50 and Rs.63.75 for one dollar.
2.  The interest rate for a one year NRI rupee term deposit would be 8.5%
3. The interest would be paid at the end of every month.
4.  The interest and principal would be readily convertible into dollars.
5.  The SBT would not take either a commission or profit for exchanging the complainant’s dollars into rupees.
6.  The SBT would give the complainant exactly the same exchange rate the SBT would be receiving from the exchange house.
7.  The complainant must send the dollars to the SBT’s Ernakulam branch’s account through one of the SBT’s intermediary banks so as to avoid the SBT taking any commission or profit.
8.  The complainant would be advised by the SBT on the exchange rate before his dollars would be converted into Indian rupees; and
9.  The SBT would not convert the complainant’s dollars into rupees without his agreement on the exact exchange rate at which his dollars would actually be converted into rupees.

On the basis of these assurances made by the 1^st opposite party the complainant wired from the US on June 6, 2015 $ 500,025(Five Lakhs and Twenty Five US Dollars) through Bank of America an intermediary bank of the SBT, to the SBT’s Ernakulam Branch account.  Complainant had instructed his American bank (US Bank ) to wire the dollars to the SBT also sent an email to the 1^st opposite party intimating about the wire transfer of $500,025  dollars.  In that email it was clearly stated by the complainant that the exchange rate as on that day was 63.70 rupees for one dollar as an indication to the 1^st opposite party that the complainant wanted to get at the least Rs.63.70 for a dollar.  The SBT received the email on July 6, 2015.  After receiving the dollars and email, the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the SBT had converted dollars into rupees at the rate of 63.10 for a dollar.  Complainant was shocked to hear that SBT had converted his dollars without any communication to him.  This was without the complainant’s knowledge, consent or agreement and was deadly against the assurance given to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party before the dollars were wired.  Moreover action of 1^st opposite party was contrary to complainant’s  demand for minimum 63.70 rupees for one dollar.  The action of the SBT was a fraudulent one  because the SBT’s sole motive in undertaking such an action without the complainant’s knowledge, consent and agreement was solely to generate an undeserving and illegal profit for the SBT.  According to the complainant before he sent the dollars the complainant was promised and guaranteed 8.5 % annual interest from the 1^st opposite party.  But after the receipt of the dollars by the SBT contrary to the agreement on the interest rate made by the 1^st opposite party with the complainant and his brother the SBT decided to reduce the yearly interest rate to 8.25 % from 8.5 %.  The interest rate reduction prior to his dollar were converted into rupees is a flagrant breach of contract and an unethical and unfair trade practice intended to defraud the complainant.  Although the exchange rate at which the SBT offered to have exchanged the complainant’s dollars into rupees was considerable lower than the range of rates that assured by the SBT prior to receiving the US dollars. According to  the complainant the intentional action of the SBT denied opportunity to the complainant to decide what he wanted to do with his dollars whether to move his dollars to another bank of better integrity and less greed or ask the SBT to return his dollars back to his bank in the US.  The SBT had not given opportunity to the complainant to decide whether he had to exchange his dollars at any rate less than Rs.63.70 for a dollar, –the rate he demanded through his email.  The SBT has no legal right in converting the complainant’s dollars into rupees without his explicit consent and agreement.  The 1^st opposite party assured and obtained the complainant’s consent before his dollar would be converted as normal universal practice and every bank would do in every country.

As per the complainant’s decision to choose the SBT over the Federal Bank and IDIB was solely based on the fact that the SBT had offered 8.5 % rate while the other two banks offered 8.25 % rate.  The action of the 1^st opposite party in reducing the low exchange rate was a serious breach of contract which caused the complainant a huge financial loss.

According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party’s assurances promises and guarantees were an indivisible part of a contract between the SBT and the complainant.  Any breach of them are violations of lawful agreement and ethical practice which amounts to flagrant disregard for its fiduciary responsibility and ethical obligation.  After four days the complainant’s dollars were converted into rupees the 1^st opposite party had intimated the complainant through  in an email admitting that the SBT failed in (1) not contacting complainant before his dollars were converted and( 2) not obtaining the complainant’s consent to exchange his dollars into rupees at Rs.63.10 for a dollar.  The 2^nd opposite party on a meeting between the complainant’s brother  admitted that the bank made a big mistake in converting the dollars without the consent of the complainant.  This confirm the SBTs culpability and responsibility that resulted in a serious financial loss to the complainant.  Subsequently, the bank informed the complainant bank will revise the rate of exchange upward from Rs.63.10 to Rs.63.30 for a dollar by cutting the bank’s profit margin.  The complainant was not willing to the proposal because he need not want to convert his dollars to anything less than  Rs.63.70 which he indicated in his email to the SBT.  Due to the fraudulent act of SBT the complainant asked to return his dollars to his bank in the US.  However on August 12, 2015 the complainant received from the SBT $495, 502.00 through his bank in U.S. this was very less than what he sent to the SBT.  Actually $500,025 was sent and $495502 was returned.  The loss to the complainant was $4,523.00 equivalent to Rs.288,115 at the rate of Rs.63.70 for a dollar.  According to the complainant he had remitted $500,025.oo at the SBT On July 6, 2015 and hence he is entitled to get interest considering the exchange rate Rs.63.70 per dollar for 38 days at the rate of 8.5 %, amounting to Rs.281,865 .The opposite parties are jointly and individually liable for the complainant’s total loss of Rs.569,980 consisting of Rs.281,115 (exchange rate loss) and Rs.281,865 (interest earned).  The SBT is legally and ethically liable to pay the complainant Rs.569,980/-.  The complainant believed in the SBT’s institutional integrity and its officer’s personal and official integrity, the actions of the SBT thoroughly  lacking  integrity and honesty.  The entire actions were illegal unlawful and unethical.  The complainant has issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties detailing the grievances he had in the matter and requested the opposite parties  to settle the issue amicably.  The SBT was not amenable to the said request but sent reply raising false allegations . Hence the complaint .

The 1^st opposite party filed version for himself and also on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 4 raising the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine with the costs of the opposite parties.Even though the complainant had sent US$5,00,025/- to the 1^st opposite party Paravoor branch through the Bank of America but the opposite party bank has received only US$ 4,99,999 after deducting US$ 26.  More over the power of attorney is not duly executed in the proper form and it is not attested or authenticated before the embassy of India or the authority competent to attest.  Opposite parties are challenging the validity of the power of attorney and A.SafarKayal has got no right to represent to the complainant.

          The opposite parties further contended that the complainant never made several telephone calls or discussion with the 1^st opposite party as stated in the complaint.  On 30.06.2015 A.SafarKayal the brother of the complainant informed the SBT that his brother who is the complainant in this case decided to remit some funds from USA for opening a rupee fixed deposit account with the SBT and he requested for certain details and asked the bank to send an Email to the complainant.  The opposite parties were not aware of the fact how much amount the complainant decided to deposit with the bank.  Accordingly the bank had given the details sought by the brother of the complainant through Email.  The opposite parties would admit that exchange rate as on 30.06.2015 was Rs.63.41 % per dollar and the rate of interest was 8.50 % per annum (quarterly compounding) for a period of one year to five years if the deposit is below Rs.1 crore.  According to the opposite parties the complainant or his brother did not disclose how much amount the complainant was willing to deposit.  The 1^st opposite party further contended that the bank never agreed that they would convert the complainant’s dollars into rupees only after obtaining consent from the complainant or the exact exchange rate at which his dollars would actually be converted into rupees as stated in the complaint.   In the Email dated 30.06.2015 sent from the bank it is clearly mentioned that the amount has to be remitted in his NRI SB account and give instructions over telephone or Email to open fixed deposit.  The rate of interest on deposits and loans will frequently vary as per the corporate level decision of the bank depending upon the Reserve Bank of India/Government policies.  It is further contended by the opposite parties that the exchange rate of all foreign currencies will fluctuate day by day.    So the bank can give only the exchange rate of that particular day.  According to the 1^st opposite party bank he had not given any assurance in respect of the exchange rate or interest rate.  It is further contended that the bank had not received any such Email from the complainant as alleged.  The SBT had received $ 4,99,999/- only on 07.07.2015.  It is further contended that the exchange rate was Rs.63 per dollar when the U.S dollars were received . It is further contended that the opposite parties informed the complainant that exchange rate on foreign currencies are fluctuating day by day.  It is further contended that to compensate the exchange rate fluctuation, on the request of the 1^st opposite party the Foreign Exchange Department , Bombay has given a better rate of Rs.63.12 per dollar and the top management of the bank had waived major portion of the transaction cost and has given 19.5 paisa on the belief that the bank would get fixed deposit of more than 300 lakhs. and it is very from the above acts clear that the bank officials had tried their maximum to get a better exchange rate beneficial to the complainant and thereby the complainant has got exchange rate of 63.31 per dollar.  In fact the bank had waived 19.5 paisa out of 25 paisa per dollar which was the transaction cost eligible for the bank.  It is further contended that bank had converted dollars into Indian rupee at the maximum available exchange rate and it is timely informed to the complainant.  It is further contended that the complainant sent the amount to the SBT for converting it to Indian rupees.  After receiving the U.S dollars the SBT is not able to withhold the amount without converting into Indian rupees because the exchange rate is fluctuating day by day and the bank become liable for the same.  It is well established principal that it is obligatory on the part of the bank to convert the Foreign Exchange into Indian rupees immediately on receipt of funds.  The complainant sent the dollars for converting it into Indian rupee and so the consent of the complainant is immaterial.  The opposite party never assured the complainant an exchange rate of Rs.63.70 per dollar.  As a public sector bank SBT has no intention to obtain illegal gain or profit from anybody.  There is no question of malice or fraud on the part of SBT as alleged. 

It is further contended by the opposite parties that the 1^st opposite party  bank had converted dollars into Indian rupees at the maximum available exchange rate and it is timely informed to the complainant.  Being a public sector bank SBT has no intention to obtain illegal gain or profit from anybody.  There is no question of malice or fraud from the part of SBT as alleged.  The SBT exchanged the dollar into rupees giving maximum benefit to the complainant and within the purview of the law of foreign exchange.  Every action of the bank is accountable and bank cannot resort to a discriminatory attitude to a customer.  It is further contended by the opposite parties that the interest rate on 07.07.2015 was only 8.25%.  The bank never promised to give interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum.  The exchange rate depends upon the RBI/Government policies.  The allegation that the exchange rate was told to the complainant only after the SBT had converted the complainant’s dollars, unconscionably defrauding the complainant is against facts.  The bank has quoted the rate of 8.50% assuming the remittance would be below Rs.100 lakhs.

            The complainant cannot demand higher exchange rate than the rate prevailing at the time of conversion.  The complainant had not demanded rupees 63.70 dollar and bank had not received any such mail. 

          It is further contended that the SBT has not made any mistake and as a responsible manager of the bank the 1^st opposite party dealt the complainant in a most humble way.  It is true that an Email has been sent seeking pardon for not obtaining consent of the complainant to convert but that has no bearing on the demand made by the complainant for higher exchange rate.  This s not on the basis of any breach of contract as alleged.  The complainant has no right to claim exchange rate of Rs.63.70 because he was entitled to get the rate only as per the prevailing exchange rate.  It is further contended by the opposite parties that there was a fall in the exchange rate and so there was a reduction in the dollar.  The exchange rate of the dollar on 10.08.2015 was Rs.63.865.  It is also contended by the opposite party received only US$ 4, 99,999/- on 06.07.2015 and fully justified in reconverting the rupee into US dollars.  According to the opposite parties the complainant has not  sustained any loss due to the act of SBT.  The claim of the  complainant that the bank would have returned US dollars of 5,00,025 which was converted into Indian rupee on 07.07.2015 to him on 10.08.2015 is unsustainable and illegal.  The bank is no way responsible for any loss if caused to the complainant as alleged.  The bank has done everything possible to give better available exchange rate to the complainant.  If any loss is caused which is purely due to the exchange rate fluctuations which the bank has nothing to do with.  Opposite parties are not liable for exchange rate loss and interest rate loss and to pay any amount to the complainant as claimed in the complaint.  The statement of account given in the complaint is baseless.

          The opposite parties did their official duty honestly with due care to avoid financial loss to the complainant.  If any financial loss is caused to the complainant it is due to the latches of the complainant for which the opposite parties are not liable. 

The further contention of the opposite parties is that SBT is a public sector bank and it has got a very good reputation achieved by the integrity and honesty of its official.  It is further contended by the opposite parties that they had issued reply notice through their advocate stating true facts.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.  Complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for.  Hence the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint.

Originally there were only 4 opposite parties who are the Chief Manager, SBT, South Paravur and the higher officials  of the said branch including the General Manager of SBT, Polayathodu.  Subsequently as per order in IA 334/18 the Chief Manager, SBI, South Paravur branch has been impleaded as additional 5^th opposite party since the SBT had been merged with SBI.

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in the transactions alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the opposite parties bank are liable to make amend the loss alleged have been sustained to the complainant in the transaction?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as per the statement of accounts?
4. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1& PW2 and Ext.P1 to P12 documents.  Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and Ext.B1 to Ext.B7 documents. Both the advocates have filed notes of arguments. 

Heard both sides.

Point No.1 to 3

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together.  Complainant got examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2.  PW1  SafarKayalwho is none other than the power of attorney holder of the original complainant.  He has sworn in the proof affidavit in tune with averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P12 documents.  Ext.P1 is the power of attorney by which he has been authorized to conduct case and adduce evidence.  Ext.P2 is the email dated 28.06.2015 sent by the complainant in favour of the 1^st opposite party bank Manager.  Ext.P3 is the email dated 29.06.2015 sent by the 1^st opposite party bank Manager in favour of the complainant.  Ext.P4 is the reply email dated 29.06.2015 10.30 p.m. sent by the complainant in favour of the 1^st opposite party bank Manager.  Ext.P5 is another email dated 06.07.2015  11.07 p.m. sent by the complainant in favor of the 1^st opposite party bank Manager.  Ext.P6 is that a copy of the email complaint dated 08.07.2015 filed against 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P7 is the reply  email sent by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the original complainant.  Ext.P8 is yet another email dated 11.07.2015 sent by the 1^st opposite party in favor of the complainant.  Ext.P9 is the letter sent by the 1^st opposite party in favor of the complainant intimating that Rs.31555311 has been credited in his account.  Ext.P10 is yet another email dated 07.07.2015 sent by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant apologizing for exchanging the US dollar without obtaining theprior  consent to the complainant.  Ext.P11 is another e-mail letter dated 05.08.2015 sent by the complainant in favour of the 1^st opposite party expressing dissatisfaction in the transaction and also requesting to send back the US dollar sent by him in its bank account at USA.  Ext.P12 is the historical rates for the USD/INR currency conversion on 30.06.2015, 07.07.2015 and 07.07.2015

PW2 is AibakKayal the S/o Safar Kayal who has been examined to prove P2, P5 and P11 are true copies of email sent by the original complainant to the opposite party Manager, SBT Paravur Branch and also to prove that Ext.P3, P4, P7 to P10 are true copies are to email sent by the opposite party SBT, Paravur branch to the original complainant who forwarded to the same to be his witness.  According to PW2 he has taken out of print of Ext.P2 to P 12 documents from his email and he has also written a certificate and put his signature in Ext.P5 to P12 documents.

DW1 is Sunilraj, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the 1^st opposite party bank. He deposed in terms of the contentions of the opposite parties in the chief examination and further proof Ext.B1 to B6 and B7 documents.  Ext.B1 is a list of foreign exchange rate dated 07.07.2015.  Ext.B2 is foreign exchange rate list dated 10.08.2015 circular indicating an interest rate dated 06.08.2015 is proved as Ext.B3.  Ext.B4 is a letter issued by the 1^st opposite party bank that transaction costs as reduced.  Ext.B5 is the approval for reduction of margin of the transaction dated 07.08.2015.  Ext.B6 is the statement of account of the complainant.  Ext.B7 is the letter issued by the complainant in favour of the 1^st opposite party praying to transmit the dollar at the rate of 64.02 rupees to the US bank.  But at that time one dollar was having a value for rupees 63.865 Indian rupees.  Pleadingsand evidence available on record would indicate that the complainant is residing abroad and is having NRI account with 1^st opposite party.  He intended to transmit US dollars around 600000/- for exchanging into Indian Rupees and making fixed deposit for a term of one year. Before transferring the US dollars the complainant A.B.SunilKayal contracted the Manager of the 1^st opposite party Bank on several times who intern communicated the complainant through telephone and email.  Ext.P2 is one of the email sent on 28.06.2015 intimating the 1^st opposite party about deposit and also by raising 9 quarries regarding the exchange rate, interest rate bank charges, commission etc.  On 29.06.2015 the Chief Manager sent Ext.P3 email stating that he has not received the mail and the request the complainant to send the mail again and also informed the balance outstanding in the  SB account of the complainant as on that day and also intimating that the interest rate for fixed deposit as on that day was to 8.50% for one year and about up to 5 years.  Again on 29.06.2015 at about 10.26 p.m after receiving P2 mail the Chief Manager sent Ext.P4 reply email answering the above 9 quarries raised in Ext.P2 mail.  The content of Ext.P4 email is quoted below.

1. Exchange rate of today is  Rs.63.41 per dollar.
2. Both principal and interest can be repatriated.
3. The rate of interest is 8.50 %p.a (quarterly compounding) for a period of 1

          year to 5 years

4. The minimum period of deposit is one year
5. SBT will not apply any charge for inward remittances to our accounts
6. Nominal commission may be charged by correspondent Banks viz SBI, JP

Morgan etc.

7. Bank is paying interest at quarterly compounding basis(interest can be

           drawn on monthly or quarterly basis)

8)        E-mail instruction or telephonic instruction is sufficient to convert the

amount to TD/STD

9)        The amount has to be remitted to your NRE SB account No.67296363672

and give instruction over telephone or e-mail to open fixed deposit.

Above Ext.P4 reply email would indicate the stand of the 1^st opposite party Bank in case the offer made by the complainant is materialized.  It is brought out in evidence that through PW1 that on 06.07.2015 the complainant A.B.SunilKayal sent US$ 500025 to the 1^st opposite party Paravur branch of the SBT through Bank of U.S.A.  It is also brought out in evidence that on the next day  that is 07.07.2015.  1^st opposite party without the consent of the complainant converted the dollar into Indian rupees @ 63.00. rupees per dollar and credited the amount in SB which is having 4 % interest per annum.  The allegation of the complainant in this regard is that the 1^st opposite party has converted the dollars at a  very low rate of exchange that is @ rupees 63 per dollar without getting instruction from the complainant/customer.  The SB account of the complainant bearing only 4 % interest per annum instead of depositing the amount in the one year term deposit as per the request of the complainant.  Another allegation is that though the rate of interest of the term deposit offered by the bank was 8.50% per annum they have reduced to 8.25 % per annum from 06.07.2015 onwards.  Yet another allegation is that the 1^st opposite party bank has charged the commission as against the assurance in the Ext.P4 email communication sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  It is alleged that on 07.07.2015 the 1^st opposite party Bank has charged rupees 165 as communication charges and rupees 4457 as service charges which is against the terms agreed.  According to the complainant the above misfeasance and malfeasance of the 1^st opposite party bank amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

  The opposite parties would resist the above allegations with tooth and nail  by stating that they would contend that there was no contract or understanding between the SBT and complainant regarding the exchange rate and that SBT has given the prevailing exchange rate.  It is brought out in evidence that there was regular communication between the complainant and 1^st opposite party bank.  It is clear from the oral evidence of DW1 that prevailing exchange rate as on 29.06.2015 was 63.41 per dollar.    The learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that  what is stated in Ext.P4 reply e-mail is  not an assurance that a bank would give rupees 63.41 per dollar,  but Rs.63.41 per one U.S.dollar is the exchange rate as on 29.06.2015.  According to PW1 the 1^st opposite party made the complainant to believe that the exchange rate as on those days is Rs.as 63.70 per one US dollar.  It is to be point out that Ext.P4 is dated 29.06.2015.  In Ext.P2 the 1^st query was regarding the exchange rate.  But what is seen asked as question  numberone is “what is the exchange rate today (28.06.2015)”.  In response  to that question the 1^st opposite party  has sent Ext.P4 reply stating that exchange rate as on the date sending P4 mail (29.06.2015) is 63.41.  In view of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the Ext.P3 lawyer notice it is clear  that the complainant A.B.SunilKayal has send 500,025 US$ on 06.07.2015.  It is true that in P3 the  complainant would claim that the exchange rate as on date of sending the US$ (6.7.2015) was rupees 63.70.  There is absolutely no reliable evidence to hold that as on transmitting US$ the exchange rate was 63.70. 

Though the complainant has entrusted US dollar 500,025/- on 06.06.2015 at the Bank of USA the 1^st opposite party bank has received the advice of the remittance of US$ 499999 only on the next day that is 07.07.2015.  However it is brought out in evidence that on the same day they have converted the same into Indian Rupee.  Now it is to be considered what was the exchange rate applicable as on 07.07.2015.  Though in Ext.P7 communication sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant it is stated that exchange rate circulars of 30.06.2015, 06.07.2015, 7.07.2015 and interest rate  particulars are attached to Ext.P7 communication no such attachment has found produced along with P7 communication.  It is further to be pointed out that Ext.P12 historical rates for the USD/INR currency conversion .  The 2^nd page of the said document would contain the rates for the USD/INR Indian currency conversion on 07.07.2015 as follows:-

Open:          1 USD=63.8611 INR

Close:          1 USD=63.6324 INR

Average 1 USD=63.691 INR

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in view of the above currency conversion rate, the average exchange rate of one USD was  Indian Rupees 63.691 as on 07.07.2015 and the complainant is entitled to get the said rate.  It is to  be pointed out that  Ext.P12 is a printout taken out from internet which is not authenticated by RBI or  Foreign Exchange Department of the bank.  Ext.P12 historical rate for US dollar for Indian currency conversion is not at all applicable to the opposite parties as contentedby the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties since  the same has not been authorized or authenticated by RBI or the Foreign Exchange Department of the 1^st opposite party Bank.

The opposite party bankbeing  a nationalized bank is expected to act on the basis of the direction of the RBI and also on the basis of the circulars containing  the directions issued by the Foreign Exchange Department of the bank.  Ext.B1 is the rate approved by the Foreign Exchange department of SBI.  As per Ext.B1 the rate of buying one U.S dollar is Rs.63 and rate of selling is  rupees 63.57.   According to DW1 though the buying rate was rupees 63 per dollar the bank has granted higher rate than the rate shown in Ext.B1 by reducing their profit and offered rupees 63.10 per dollar and as the complainant was not amenable for the same,   the 1^st opposite party   bank has enhanced the rate of exchange from rupees 63.10 to 63.30 by cutting the banks profit margin.  Even then the complainant was not amenable.  He has been sticking on getting  therate of rupees 63.70 which he demanded in his email send to the 1^st opposite party.  It is clear from the available materials that as the rate of exchange is flexible and may change each day the complainant is not entitled to get the rate offered on 29.06.15 after one week.  It is argued on behalf of the  opposite parties that the foreign exchange received the bank has no authority to keep the same as such without exchanging the same in to  Indian currency and 1^st opposite party was having no time gap to receive the consent from the complainant.  We find no force the above argument especially when it is brought out in evidence that the  1^st opposite party and complainant were in the habit of contacting each other and making telephone calls and only less than 10 minutes is require to send an email communication quoting the present rate of exchange and obtaining consent of the complainant.  But the 1^st opposite party has miserably failed  to do so though he was aware that the complainant expects a higher rate of exchange.  In the circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in exchanging the US dollars into Indian rupees without the consent of the complainant at a lower rate than the rate expected by the complainant.  In view of the materials discussed above we hold that  the complainant is entitled to get  compensation for gross deficiency in service committed by the 1^st opposite party bank in exchanging the US dollar wired by the complainant in a lower rate without obtaining the  consent of the complainant as agreed in Ext.P4 email.

Yet another allegation is that though the rate of interest of the deposit offered by the bank was 8.50% p.a. they have offered only 8.25% p.a. to an amount of  rupees 3 and odd crores offered by the complainant as  term deposit for a one year.  According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party Chief Manager has made him to believe that if the complainant permits the 1^st opposite party bank to deposit the said amount in a fixed deposit for one year more,  the bank would allow an interest at the rate of  8.5 %.  Ext.P4 email sent by 1^st opposite party to the complainant would probabalise the above claim of the complainant regarding interest.  It is to be pointed out that the query No.4raised in Ext.P2 e-mail sent by  the complainant it was asked to the 1^st opposite party what is the  highest rate of interest the bank  would be able to offer for US dollars 6,00,000  for one year.  It is brought out in evidence that in  reply to the above query 1^st opposite party has sent Ext.P4 email where it is stated that interest rate will be 8.50% per annum (quarterly compounding) if the deposit is for a minimum period of one year extending upto 5 years.  However the opposite parties  could not admit the above interest rate.  According to the opposite parties interest rate for one year is 8.25 % only.  Originally it was 8.50% per annum but it was reduced to 8.25%w.e.f. 06.07.2015.  According to the opposite parties the rate of interest prevailing as on the date of sending  Ext.P4 email (ie on 29.06.2015) was 8.5 % per annum for the  period of one year up to 5 years,  provided the minimum period of deposit is one year.  Subsequently the rate of interest was changed.   The learned counsel for the opposite party would rely on Ext.P3 circular and argued that as per the said circular the rate of interest was changed from 8.50% to 8.25% w.e.f. 06.07.2015.  On perusal of Ext.P3 it is clear that  it is  a creation of the 1^stopposite party bank itself and it is not a direction of the RBI or the Government.  The opposite party ought  to have intimated the complainant over phone or through email communication that the rate of interest has been changed subsequently as per B3 circular.   Without intimating the complainant the opposite party is not expected to reduce the rate of interest unilaterally on the basis of Ext.B3 circular which has no legal footing as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that 1^st opposite party had offered 8.5 % rate of interest on the belief that FD amount will be less than one crore and if it is more than one crore the offer is not valid.  In view of the facts and circumstances available on record  we find little force in the above contention.   It is brought out in evidence that from the very beginning of the transaction the original complainant and his brother (PW1) informed the 1^st opposite party that the complainant is intending to send five and odd lakhs US dollar,  for converting the same at the maximum rate and also to deposit the said Indian rupee for one year.  In Ext.P2 also it is clearly stated as query No.4  that he has been intending to send six lakhs US dollar for conversion into Indian rupee and to deposit for one year.  In the circumstances the contention of the  1^st opposite party that he had offered 8.5% interest under the impression that Indian rupee to be deposit is below one crore is not acceptable at all.  In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above  it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 8.50 % per annum from the date of conversion till it was reconverted and sent back to US dollar to the complainant.

Yet another grievance of the complainant is that the 1^stopposite party has not sought for his instruction before converting the US dollar send by him into Indian rupee especially when it was converted for a lesser rate of exchange than the offered  rate of exchange.  It is to be pointed  out that the rate of exchange was 63.41 per dollar as on the date of sending Ext.P4 e-mail.  But there is no mention that the exchange rate is flexible and there is every chance of reducing the exchange rate on subsequent days.  But the US dollar sent by the complainant  was exchanged only for Rs.63.10  dollar.  It is far below the rate of exchange offered by the 1^st opposite party.  In  answer No.8 of P4 e-mail it is clearly stated that email instruction or telephonic instruction is sufficient to convert amount to TD/STD.   The above communication  would clearly indicate that instruction is sufficient and acceptable, if it is sent by email or telephone.  But no such instruction has been sought for from the complainant.  The explanation offered by the opposite party in this regard is that it will take time to obtain instruction and the 1^stopposite party is not expected to keep the foreign exchange for a long time without encashing it.  The circumstances available on record would indicate that the complainant and 1^st opposite party used to contact  eachother over phone and also used to communicate by email.  Making a telephone call or sending a email would take a maximum time of 10 minutes.  In the circumstances the explanation offered by the opposite parties in this regard is not acceptable.  There is lapse and latches in not obtaining instruction from the complainant especially when 500,025  US dollars sent by the complainant was exchanged for the very low rate of Rs.63.10 per dollar.  Hence the above act of the opposite party would definitely amounts to deficiency in service.  It is further to be pointed out that offering a higher rate of interest to the fixed deposit and the complaint acting on the basis of that offer,  but subsequently granting only a  lesser rate of interest than the rate offered will definitely amounts to unfair trade practice.

On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view  that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and as a result of  which the complainant has sustained loss of 25% interest Rupees4,99,999x6330=3,16,49,937/- for 38 days as claimed by him.  As the foreign exchange rate is flexible the complainant is not entitled to get the exchange rate stated in Ext.P4 or as claimed by him   especially when there was no offer in ext.P4 email that the opposite party would give Indian rupees 63.71 or 63.41 or any higher rate .  But the exchange rate as on the date of sending Ext.P4 e-mail would indicate the exchange rate of US dollar on the date of communication only.  Therefore the prayer of the complainant to make amend the loss sustained to him  on account of difference in exchange rate is not allowable.

In the statement of account the complainant has sought for Rs.250000/- as loss occasion due to retransfer.  It is crystal clear from available materials that retransfer was necessitated as the complainant was not satisfied with the rate of exchange and rate of interest offered by the 1^st opposite party which is far below the  expected rate by the complainant and also for not converting amount to fixed deposit as agreed.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to make amend the said loss. 

The 3^rd item shown the statement of account Rs.1,00,000/- being compensation for deficiency in service.  We havealready  found that there is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party bank.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service as claimed in the complainant.  The last item stated in the statement of account is loss of interest for 38 days.  It is clear from the available materials that the complainant has sustained loss of interest for an  amount of Rs.316,49,937/-  at the rate of 8.5% which will come to the tune of Rs.2,80,080/-.   But the complainant has sought for only Rs.2,00,000/-.  Hence this claim is limited to Rs.2,00,000/-.

Opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are the Zonal Managers and Regional Manager of the 1^st opposite party SBT, South Paravur Branch.  But it is clear from the amended para 33 of the complaint which was  added by amendment allowed as per ordered in IA 150/2020 dated on 04.09.2020 that the opposite party 1 to 4 are not in existence at present.  The SBT has merged with SBI and after the merger the SBI represent the interest and liabilities of the erstwhile SBT.  Therefore additional 5^th opposite party who is the Chief Manager of the SBI, Paravur Branch, Kollam is liable to pay the amount to be  awardin this order to the complainant.

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

(a)The additional 5^th opposite party the Chief Manager of SBI, South Paravoor Branch is directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @8.5% per annum from the date of complaint till realization as loss occasioned due to the reconvertion  of  the Indian rupee to US dollars and retransfer of the same to the complainant at  USA. 

(b)The additional 5^th opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of complaint till realization as compensation for deficiency in service. 

(c)The Additional 5^th opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% from 07.07.2015 till the amount is retransferred  as loss of interest for the amount. 

(d)The additional 5^th opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings.     

(e)The Additional 5^th opposite party is directed to comply with the said directions within 45 days  from the date of receipt of  a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization for the amount awarded under Clause (a) to (c) along with costs awarded under clause (d).

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the  28^th day of  October  2020.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya   Rani: Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

            Forwarded/by order

         Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                :           Safar Kayal

PW2                :           AibakKayal

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             :           power of attorney

Ext.P2             :           email issued by Chief Manager, SBT branch, South Paravur

Ext.P2(a)        :           Letter issued to SBT Chief Manager, South Paravur

Ext.P3             :           legal notice dated 16.07.2015

Ext.P4             :           email letter issued by Chief Manager, SBT South Paravur

Ext.P5             :           email issued by complainant in favour of Chief Manager,

                                    South Paravur  branch

Ext.P6             :           email issued by complainant in favour of Chief Manager,

                                    South Paravur  branch

Ext.P7             :           email letter issued in favour of complainant by SBT,

Chief Manager, South Paravur branch dated 30.06.2015

Ext.P8             :           email issued by Chief Manager in favour of SBT dated 07.11.2015

Ext.P9             :           email addressed in favour of complainant, Chief Manager, SBT,

                                    South Paravur

Ext.P10          :           email letter issued in favour of complainant by SBT, Chief Manager,

South Paravur branch dated 07.07.2015

Ext.P11          :           letter issued in favour of complainant, Chief Manager, SBT,

South Paravur branch

Ext.P12          :           letter regarding the USD/INR 30.06.2015 & 07.07.2015

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1               :           Sunil raj

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.B1            :           statement of accounts regarding the exchange rate issued by SBT

                                    dated 07.07.2015    

Ext.B2            :           enclosed card rate issued by SBT, South Paravur branch

dated 10.08.2015

Ext.B3            :           circular issued by SBT dated 06.07.2015

Ext.B4            :           note issued by SBT, South Paravur branch dated 10.08.2015

Ext.B5            :           request issued by SBT dated 07.08.2015

Ext.B6            :           statement of accounts issued from SBT dated 30.04.2016

Ext.B7 series :           Repatriation of Funds from NRE SB 67296363672

          Mr.Sunil A.B Kayal

E.M.MuhammedIbrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya   Rani: Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by order

Senior Superintendent