Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/212/2017

M. G.Gopalan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Managar, Indian Bank Panagal Park Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Venkataswamy Babu

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                                                Date of Complaint Filed : 04.07.2017

                                                                Date of Reservation      : 09.12.2022

                                                                Date of Order               : 26.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.212 /2017

MONDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

M.G.Gopalan,

S/o.Manalur Govinda Rajan,

No.14/34A, Buddar Street,

East Tambaram,

Chennai-600 059.                                                                                                                             ... Complainant              

..Vs..

1.The Branch Manager,

   Indian Bank, Panagal Park Branch,

   T. Nagar, Chennai-600017.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

   State Bank of Mysore,

   T. Nagar Branch, T.Nagar,

   Chennai-600 017.

 

3.The Banking Ombudsman, Chennai,

   II Floor, RBI Building,

   Rajaji Salai,

   Chennai-600 001.                                                                                                                        ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Venkataswamy Babu

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

 

On perusal of records, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties praying to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards the serious deficiency in service committed and for serious hardship and mental agony caused by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2  along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

         The Complainant’s son is studying in New Zealand and he had approached the 1^st Opposite Party and requested to transfer funds to his son’s NRI account for tuition fee at New Zealand on 05.08.2016 from the Complainant’s Account and the 1^st Opposite Party Officials agreed to transfer the same. The Complainant wanted to transfer a sum of 18250 NZD and he had remitted the equivalent Indian money to the 1^st Opposite Party for transferring the same. However the 1^st Opposite Party took 3 days time and returned the funds stating that the 1^st Opposite Party is not authorised to deal with Forex New Zealand Dollars as per the RBI guidelines and bank policy. The 1^st Opposite Party agreed to transfer the funds on 05.08.2016 without considering the authority and power to deal with New Zealand and Dollars which is nothing but blatant deficiency in service. Due to inordinate delay by the 1^st Opposite Party to transfer 18250 NZD Dollars to his son NRI account, his son was deprived of tuition fee and money for other living expenses. The Complainant's son suffered serious illness and hardship and was not in a position to have food nearly 2 days and his son was hospitalized in New Zealand for serious illness and took treatment as inpatient for two days. His son paid sum of Rs.50,000/- as penalty (Late Fee). After receiving communication from the hospital at New Zealand, the Complainant was forced to travel to New Zealand by spending around 2 Lakhs to take care of his son Due to delay and deficiency in service of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant, his son and his family had suffered serious hardship and mental agony. Due to deficiency in service, his son suffered a lot in New Zealand and was forced to travel to New Zealand and further he made a complaint to the 3^rd Opposite Party to pay compensation on 30.10.2016 and on 31.10.2016 he made a complaint before RBI, Chennai in person and the same was acknowledged by the RBI. Further the Complainant had sent repeated complaints by mail and in person to 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties. After a long time the 3^rd Opposite Party by a proceedings dated 18.11.2016 replied that complaint was registered as Complaint No.201617006003101 against the 1^st Opposite Party under Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 (BOS 2006) and the 1^st Opposite Party letter dated 05.12.2006 stated that they were permitted to deal with New Zealand Dollars. Without considering the facts, circumstances and serious hardships of the Complainant, the 3rd Opposite Party passed an untenable order on 06.01.2017 on the Complainant's complaint as follows:

"They did not provide proper information in timely manner and that led to delay in transfer of fund. Hence this office is of the opinion that there was some deficiency on the part of the bank (1^st Opposite Party) and therefore bank has been advised to pay you Complainant) a compensation of Rs.5,000/- or an amount as per their compensation policy".

 The Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 07.02.2017 through his counsel, the 1^st Opposite Party after receipt of legal notice failed to give any reply and also failed to pay compensation. The 3^rd Opposite Party by a Proceedings dated 03.04.2017 passed orders that there was no deficiency on the part of the Bank and to approach any other grievance redressal fora.

In the above said circumstances, the Complainant has no other option except to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Consumer Complaint.

Hence the complaint.

3.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3. The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served on them. Hence the Opposite Parties were set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The Complainant submitted that he had approached the 1^st Opposite Party and requested to transfer funds to his son who is holding NRI Account for his Tuition fee at New Zealand on 05.08.2016 from the account of the Complainant and had remitted a sum equivalent to 18250 NZD. The 1^st Opposite Party took 3 days time and returned the funds stating they are not authorised to deal with the Forex New Zealand dollars.  Due to the inordinate delay by the 1^st Opposite Party to transfer funds, his son was deprived of tuition fees and money for other expenses, his son had to pay Rs.50,000/- as penalty and suffered serious illness for two days. On receiving communication from the Hospital at New Zealand the Complainant was forced to travel to New Zealand spending around 2 lakhs to take care of his son.  Due to delay and deficiency of service of the 1^st Opposite Party the Complainant was made to suffer great hardship and mental agony.

        As per Ex.A-1  the Complainant has given complaint to Banking Ombudsman on 31.10.2016 alleging  his hardship and sufferance at the hands of the 1^st Opposite Party and sought to settle the issue. The Banking Ombudsman by their proceeding dated 06.01.2017 has held that “After verifying the facts and scrutiny of the available documents, this office observed that though the bank was trying their best to help you in FX fund transfer, they did not provide proper information in timely manner and that led to delay in transfer of fund. Hence, this office is of the opinion that there was some deficiency on the part of the bank and therefore the bank has been advised to pay you a compensation of Rs.5000/- or an amount as per their compensation policy whichever is higher”.

        Further as per Ex.A-3 the Banking Ombudsman by it proceeding dated 03.05.2017 on the complaint filed by the Complainant against the State Bank of Mysore, T Nagar Branch has held as follows:-

        “On taking up the matter with the bank, it was informed that you had visited on 08.08.2016 at 11.15 A.M and requested to transfer the funds (NZ$) to your son, who is studying in New Zealand. The bank stated that the concerned branch is not authorised to effect the fund transfer directly to New Zealand and hence, the Manger (Advances) immediately contacted their IB decision of Bangalore branch to arranged for cross currency remittance and sent a Fax furnishing all the remittance details. The Bangalore branch had effected the transaction on 09.08.2016 by debited your account on the same day. The bank further stated that there was no delay on the part of the concerned branch / Bangalore branch and date of the credit to the beneficiary account also informed to you. Further, the bank has claimed that the disputed transaction done on 09.08.2016 was successful. The bank has submitted the report for the same.

        Having examined your complaint and the bank’s reply, this Office observed no deficiency of service on the part of the bank. Hence, we advise having closed your complaint”.

        On perusal of Ex.A-2 it is seen that the 1^st Opposite Party had not provided proper information regarding transfer of funds in New Zealand dollar and that there was some delay in transfer of fund and held that there was some deficiency on the part of the bank.  However there is no allegation as against the 2^nd Opposite Party in the complaint and banking Ombudsmen by Ex.A-3 had observed no deficiency as against the 2^nd Opposite Party.

        Except the observations made by the 3^rd Opposite Party against the 1^st Opposite Party there is no other document produced by the Complainant to prove the allegations as against the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. Moreover the Complainant has not produced any document to show that due to the  deficient act of the 1^st Opposite Party in transfer of funds the Complainant was forced to travel  New Zealand and the penalty was paid by his son for payment of late tuition fee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussions we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the 1^st Opposite Party. Complaint is dismissed against Opposite Parties 2 and 3. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 & 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service committed along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for the deficiency in service committed along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), within 8 weeks from the date receipt of this order, failing which the above amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation. The above complaint is dismissed as against Opposite Parties 2 and 3.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 26^th of December 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	31.10.2016	Copy of complaints
Ex.A2	06.01.2017	Copy of proceedings of the Banking Ombudsman
Ex.A3	03.04.2017	Copy of proceedings of the Banking Ombudsman

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT