Delhi

StateCommission

C-343/2002

MS INTERNATIONAL TRADE EXPO CENTER LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. MUKESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ASSISTENT GENREL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:16.02.2018

Complaint Case No. 343/2002

In the matter of:

M/s International Trade Expo Centre Ltd.

I-83 B, Lajpat Nagar-II

New Delhi-110024

Through its Managing Director

ShriMukesh Sharma                               .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. The Assistant General Manager

Punjab National Bank

ECE House Branch

25-A, K G Marg

New Delhi-110001

 

2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director

International Banking Branch

Punjab National Bank

7, BhikajiCama Place

New Delhi-110066

 

3. The Chief Manager

Indian Overseas Bank

M-82, (Market) G.K.II

New Delhi-110048

 

4. The Chief Executive
2357221.  
17.  

Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005            ..........Opposite Parties

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.         Case in brief of the complainant is that by way of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Inter Financial Transactions) an amount of Rs. one million GBP (Great British Pound) was sent to it on 02.08.2002. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that in the year 2002 SWIFT was one of the popular modes of sending money from one country to another. The equivalent of Rs. one million GBP was Rs. 7,57,20,000/-. Complainant is engaged in the business of real estate and a public limited company functioning in India. Its transaction in India used to be routed through Punjab National Bank amongst others. Indian Overseas Bank, Greater KailashNew Delhi is the banker of the complainant.
2.         Grievance of the complainant is that the abovesaid money sent on 02.08.2002 from UK was credited to its account only on 09.08.2002. A fall in foreign exchange rates, by that time had caused loss to the complainant and to the tune of Rs. 14,80,000/-. Foreign exchange rates had fallen fromRs.75.72 to Rs. 74.32.
3.         Defence raised by Punjab National Bank (OP-1 & 2) is that credit advice for the credit was received only on 3.8.2002, there being a difference in the time in UK and in India. 3.8.2002 was a half day, it being Saturday. 4.8.2002 was a holiday, it being Sunday. Submission of Punjab National Bank is that the foreign exchange market remained closed on 03.08.2002 and 4.8.2002. Next submission of Punjab National Bank is that it made an attempt to contact the beneficiary bank i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, telephonically immediately. It failed in its attempts as the telephone numbers of the beneficiary bank were not readily available. Under exchange control guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India, all the remittances exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-, required the option of the beneficiary for their execution. As per Reserve Bank of India guidelines and FEDAI Rules, intimation was required to be sent to the beneficiary towards remittance above Rs. 1 lakh, within three working days from the receipt of the credit advice. In case of remittance of Rs. 1 lakh and belowa period of ten days was prescribed for this purpose.
4.         Punjab National Bank further submitted that it made an attempt to give intimation to the bank of the beneficiary on 03.08.2002 and 5.08.2002 but failed. Contention of the OP is that the letter of intimation dated 03.08.2002 was sent by courier. A fax message stood already sent on 06.08.2002 on the telephone number taken from MTNL directory. Bank of the beneficiary sent its reply on 09.08.2002 only. Payment was made on that very day. Cash order was handed over to the complainant’s representative immediately. OP thus contended that it acted promptly in transferring the abovesaid amount.
5.         Stand taken by OP No. 3 i.e. the Indian Overseas Bank, (the banker of the complainant) is that it received a letter dated 03.08.2002 from Punjab National Bank in the afternoon of 07.08.2002. The said letter showedthat a remittance in GBP of one lakh was received. Complainant was accepting the remittance of one million GBP. This surprised the OP-3. Punjab National Bank was contacted on phone. On receipt of information, Punjab National Bank issued a cheque in the name of the complainant. Complainant withdrew the said amount. There was thus no ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of OP No. 3.
6.         After the completion of the pleadings, parties filed affidavits towards evidence. Written arguments too were filed.
7.         I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant Sh. Tushar John Advocate and Counsel for the OP-1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank) Sh. S K Tanwar Advocate and the Counsel for the OP-3 Sh. Siddharth Advocate.
8.         It may be mentioned here that as per FEDAI rules the applicable exchange rate for conversion of foreign currency in world remittance is one prevailing on the date of the conversion of foreign currency into Indian rupees. Now a question arises whether there was a delay on the part of either the Punjab National Bank or Indian Overseas Bank, in completing the exercise of remittance of money received by way of SWIFT. Ld. Counsel for the complainant heavily relied upon the courier receipt in token of having sent the intimation to Indian Overseas Bank by Punjab National Bank. Contention of the complainant is that the courier receipt itself bore the date 06.08.2002. Be that as it may, any financial institution requires a reasonable time for dealing with any transaction. 03.08.2002 was a half day and 4.8.2002 was a holiday. The documents available with Punjab National Bank did not bear the telephone number so as to enable it to communicate by way of a fax message. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the transaction in question pertained to the year 2002 when e-mail and other modern electronics modes were not highly popular. Punjab National Bank acted promptly in writing the letter and sending it the same day by way of a courier to the complainant. It was done on 06.08.2002 after the loss of only one working day. Now coming to the contention of the complainant that the Punjab National Bank quoted the amount of money received as Rs. 1 lakh GBP instead of one million GBP which caused further delay, both Punjab National Bank and Indian Overseas Bank clarifiedthe position amongst themselves telephonically. There is no exchange of correspondence between them on this count leading to further delay. Admittedly the whole transaction of remittance was complete on 09.08.2002 when the complainant withdrew the money too. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that either Punjab National Bank or Indian Overseas Bank was not ‘deficient in service’.
9.         Before parting it may be mentioned here that in case of the exchange rates going up during those days, Punjab National Bank was liable to pay the amount on higher exchange rates. Nobody could contemplate an increase or decrease in the exchange rates. OPs have acted with a reasonable speed in handling the transaction. Complaint thus filed by the complainant is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
10.  Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)