BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Monday, 16th June 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 14/ 2014
Kalla Chakrapani, D.No. 37/1084-A, Nehrunagar,
Kadapa Post and Mandal, YSR District. Complainant.
Vs.
Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,
Kadapa Mandal and Post, Near Apsara theater,
YSR District. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 9-6-2014 in the presence of complainant as in person and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is residing at Nehrunagar, Kadapa. The complainant is having S.B. Account at Indian Overseas Bank bearing Account No. 125601000023046 for his necessities. The complainant friend by name Sebastian Schreiter is residing at Germany for his necessities the complainant had requested the Indian Overseas Bank authorities to send 180 EUR worth money from his account to his friend Sebastian Schreiter account at Germany bearing A/c No. DE04 120300000016968950 on SWIFT message procedure. The said Sebastian Schreiter, who is at Germany was having account at Deutsche credit bank, Berlin bearing A/c No. DE04 120300000016968950. The Kadapa Indian Overseas Bank people had converted the Rupees into 180 EUR and sent the same for foreign exchange bank i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Guntur. NRI dealing branch on 6-11-2013, as per one EUR worth of Rs. 83.82. Then 180 EUR is collected at Rs. 15087.6 and the service charges was Rs. 1069/- in total Rs. 16,156/- was debited from complainant’s account. After that the complainant enquired his friend Sebastian Schreiter, Germany about the receiving of amount. Sebastian Schreiter told that he had received only 150.5 EUR and remaining 25.5 EUR were deducted by the Guntur Indian Overseas Bank under service charges. The same collection was from Guntur Indian Overseas Bank to the complainant also under Ex. A1.
3. The service charges collected from beneficiary i.e. 25.5 EUR and the service charges collected from the account of the complainant i.e. Rs. 1069/- illegally. The complainant asked about the same legal procedure at Indian Overseas Bank, Kadapa. The respondent replied that it is not in the purview of their bank. The respondent replied that the complainant had to approach the Indian Overseas Bank, NRI branch Guntur for details. The complainant is having S.B. Account at Kadapa Indian Overseas Bank the transaction took place at Kadapa Indian Overseas Bank and as per direction of the Kadapa Indian Overseas bank only. The Guntur Indian Overseas NRI Branch Officials sent the money in SWIFT message procedure. So the Kadapa Indian Overseas Bank i.e. respondent bank is liable for loss incurred to the complainant. The complainant had published the same in science journal. For the same the complainant had send 180 EUR as the bank service charges was deducted 25.5 EUR and as there is less amount, the article was not published in time and there was lot of delay in publishid the article. Thus, things caused much mental agony to the complainant. The respondent bank had collected illegally service charges of Rs. 1069/- as there is delay in publishing article of the complainant at Germany country. The complainant approached this Hon’ble forum to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 50,000/- for deducting the service charges illegally at Rs. 1069/-. The complainant prayed the Hon’ble forum to award interest to the above said amount. The complainant prayed the Hon’ble forum to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
4. The respondent filed their counter denying that the complaint is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts.
5. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein by this respondent. The present complaint does not fall within the purview of the provisions of C.P. Act 1986 and liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant without knowing the fundamentals of the Banking procedure particularly in the nature of the present transaction, has filed the complaint merely basing on imaginations. Therefore, he is liable to pay exemplary costs to the respondent bank for subjecting them to unnecessary risk and costs.
7. It is true that the complainant is having SB Account with respondent bank since 29-8-2013 and the complainant approached the respondent bank for remittance of 180 EUR to the country Frankfurt being one Sebastian Schreiter as beneficiary into his account at Deutsche Bank. The remittance procedure is called as “SWIFT”. This facility is available at the respondent Bank branch at Guntur. The respondent bank at Kadapa would simply transfer the amount as per the request of the customer to Guntur Branch with a request to send the said amount to the country required. In turn, the Guntur Branch would remit the said amount after collection of their charges. On receipt of the said amount by the beneficiary bank of the concerned country would pay the amount to the beneficiary after collection of their charges. Thus it is clear that no charges will be collected in any case by the respondent bank at Kadapa. As stated in the above the Kadapa branch would transfer the amount from their branch to Guntur branch at free of cost as it is an internal transfer only.
8. In fact, the complianant should know what would be the charges that may be levied by the beneficiary bank and he should add the said charges to the actual amount which he intends to send to the beneficiary. In the instant case the complainant has requested to send 180 EUR on 6-11-2013 at the then prevailing rate of one EUR at Rs. 83.82 and it is clarified to him that while remitting this amount from Guntur Branch they would collect their charges and accordingly an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant. But, on 6-11-2013 the Guntur Branch did not function in view of “Samaikyandra” Bundh and therefore at request of the complainant, the transaction was entertained on 7-11-2013 by the Guntur Branch. As on 7-11-2013 the prevailing rate of one EUR was Rs. 84.90 added with SWIFT charges of Rs. 562/- and Bank commission of Rs. 281/- Plus Service Tax of Rs. 30.90 (rounded off to Rs. 31/-) which all the amounts totaling to Rs. 16,155-90, rounded off to Rs. 16,156/- as aforesaid. The complainant has given the rate of one EUR as on 6-11-2013 and miscalculated the entire things. It was already clarified to the complainant and he is aware of the said fact. Thus the allegations made by the complainant in respect of the said entire transaction are utter false.
9. Now it seems the complainant has informed by the beneficiary that the total amount of 180 EUR was not paid by his banker in view of collection of their charges at Frankfurt, it is correct. As already stated in the above, the beneficiary bank would pay the amount to the beneficiary after collection of their charges at their end. But the complainant without knowing these fundamentals it seems misunderstood that the two time charges are levied at Kadapa branch and Guntur Branch.
10. The allegations of the complainant that there was a delay in publication of his alleged article at abroad and that there was mental agony for him etc., are utter false. It may be observed that as seen from the letter of the beneficiary which is filed by the complainant it is clear that the complainant did not add the commission charges of the beneficiary bank at Frankfurt to the required fee of 180 EUR meant for publication of his article and as such there was a short falling of 25.50 EUR. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant himself is at fault and it is settled law that “no one is held responsible for one’s own wrong”.
11. In the light of the above said facts, circumstances, it is clear that the Bank has rendered their at most services at the complainant and by stretch of no imagination they can be find faulted with and the question of the alleged deficiency in service on their part does not arise at all. In fact, the nature of the complaint is alleged collection of excess charges and the said nature would fall out of the purview of provisions of the C.P. Act 1986 and such nature of complaints shall be dealt by a Civil Court and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
12. There are no bonafies in filing the present complaint and it is purely speculative, frivolous and vexatious within the meaning of Sec. 26 of C.P. Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the Hon’b le forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs of the bank within the meaning of Sec. 26 of C.P. Act 1986 in the interest of justice.
13. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed by him or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent?
- To what relief?
14. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 was marked.
15. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is true that the complainant is having Account with the respondent Bank bearing A/c No. 125601000023046 at Kadapa. The complainant approached the respondent bank for remittance of 180 EUR sending to one Sebastian Schreiter, as beneficiary in to his amount at Deutsche Bank bearing A/c No. DE04 120300000016968950. The said remittance procedure is called “SWIFT”. This facility is available at the respondent bank’s branch at Guntur. The respondent bank at Kadapa would simply transfer the amount to Guntur branch with a request to send the said amount to the country required. In turn, the Guntur Branch would remit the said amount after collection of their charges. Under Ex. A1 it is very clear that the complainant is having account with the respondent bank. The complainant has requested to send 180 EUR on 6-11-2013 on that prevailing rate of one EUR at Rs. 83.82 and the same was clarified by the complainant. Before remitting the amount from Guntur Branch and they would collect their charges accordingly an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant. Due to samaikyandrhra bundh on 6-11-2013 the Guntur Branch was not functioned. So, the entire transactions was entertained on 7-11-2013. On 7-11-2013 the prevailing rate of one EUR was Rs. 84.90. The Bank people was informed the same to the complainant and they added SWIFT charges of Rs. 562/- and bank commission of Rs. 281/- Plus service tax of Rs. 30.90 (rounded off to Rs. 31/-) altogether Rs. 16,155.90 rounded off to Rs. 16,156/-. As per calculation of EUR as on 6-11-2013 and calculation of EUR on 7-11-2013 there is a variation and the complainant should know the variation of the amount. As it is an international transaction the complainant should be aware of everything. There is no evidence filed by the complaint that he had wrote one article and it is to be published at Germany country. While being bank transaction that too international transactions, the complainant should be very careful. Without knowing the things the complainant would not blame bank officials. No one is held responsible for one’s own wrong. It is bounded duty of the complainant to know the value of EUR as on 7-11-2013. It is not wrong on the part of the respondent Bank. As seen from the above averments it is very clear that there is not deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondent’s bank and at the same time the complainant is not liable for any compensation as prayed by him.
16. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 16th June 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c Saving Bank pass book issued by the respondent.
Ex. A2 P/c of delivery report details issued by the I.O.B NRI Branch,
Guntur.
Ex. A3 P/c of E.mail send by Substian Stators – regarding incomplete
payment by IOB Bank, Guntur.
Exhibits marked for Respondent: -
[
Ex. B1 Original letter dt. 12-5-2014 received from IOB, Guntur Branch with details of the charges levied for the transaction dt. 7-11-2013 relating to the complainant.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri Kalla Chakrapani, D.No. 37/1084-A, Nehrunagar,
Kadapa Post and Mandal, YSR District
2) Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for respondent.
B.V.P.
