Date of filing:30-07-2012
Date of Disposal: 31-10-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.
PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 31st day of October, 2014
C.C.NO.50/2012
Between:
Social Education and Development
Society, rep. by its Executive Director,
Rajen Joshua, Anandapuram,
Peddamanthur SO, Penukonda Taluk,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- State Bank of India,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
Ananthapuramu District.
- The General Manager,
Overseas Branch,
State Bank of India,
Road No.36, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad. … Opposite Parties
This petition coming on this day for hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Guru Prasad, Advocate for the complainant, Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, President: - This complaint is filed by the complainant i.e. Social Education and Development Society, represented by its Executive Director, Rajen Joshua under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay sum of Rs.8,26,025/- being the interest @ 18% p.a. for a period of 47 days on Rs.3,51,51,138/- and award Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental torture and mental agony and also award costs of the complaint, with the following brief allegations that:
2. The complainant is a Non-Governmental Organization having all necessary registrations with all concerned authorities. The Non-Governmental Organization is engaged in social service for the developmental field of Penukonda area of Ananthapuramu District. The organization by its disciplined, dedicated service earned a reputation of its own to the poor and needy interalia with developmental activities in the field of agriculture and towards a greener tomorrow in the drought prone area of operation. The complainant further stated that it is registered under FCRA Act and designated Bank account of the complainant is in the 1st opposite party Branch. The complainant has been transacting with the 1st opposite party for the past 30 years. The complainant as an account-holder is a consumer and entitled to redress his grievance against the opposite parties for deficiency of service rendered to the complainant. In pursuance of the solemn understanding of Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement and a time bound programme the complainant was ordained to do Bio-Gas programme with an understanding that for every week the complainant has to deliver 360 units. In order to accomplish the task the funding agency remitted a sum of Rs.3,51,51,138/- equivalent to 526446-00 Euros by telegraphic transfer from EED, Germany on 23-02-2012, which was received at Mumbai Branch on 23-02-2012 itself. The Mumbai Branch transferred the said amount to the 2nd opposite party on 05-03-2012 itself. The 2nd opposite party is bound to transfer the amount and credit it to the account of the complainant in the 1st opposite party Branch forthwith to enable the consumer to deal with his funds. The 2nd opposite party totally neglected in crediting the amount to the account of the complainant forthwith and as such the opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficiency in service to the complainant. The opposite parties without bonafides failed to remit the amount to the account of the complainant for making gain. The complainant’s bonafide enquiries revealed that with a view to augment their balance sheet on the end of the Financial Year retained the amount without crediting the same. The complainant is constrained to telephone on number of occasions to the 2nd opposite party, but without any effect. On 21-04-2012 the complainant addressed a letter to the 2nd opposite party claiming interest for delayed remittance by 47 days. The 2nd opposite party wrote a reply letter dt.25-04-2012 informed that on the basis of enquiry of 1st opposite party made on 07-04-2012, the 2nd opposite party came to know that the 1st opposite party has not received the cover sent through courier. The contents of the letter are totally false.
3. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties retained the amount of Rs.3,51,51,138/- without crediting the same within reasonable time of 3 to 4 days. The inordinate delay in remitting the amount in these days of advanced technology and claim made by the opposite parties that they are making best services and have infrastructure and commitment to clear Banking transactions immediately amounts to gross deficiency in service rendered by them. The complainant is constrained to borrow amount with exorbitant rates of interest to complete target to honour the binding agreement between complainant and funding agency. The complainant was subjected to mental trauma in finding out the financiers and to face the workers, who are engaged in construction of Bio-Gas Units. The mental agony suffered by the complainant has no bounds. The failure to remit the amount is visited with insurmountable difficulty and severe disruption of work and as such the opposite parties are bound to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties used money without remitting to the account of the complainant for a period of 47 days and unjustifiably retaining the amount for their own use entitles the complainant to claim interest @ 18% p.a. per annum for a period of 47 days. The opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficiency of services to the complainant in terms of quality in pursuance of well-established norms of Banking Service having collected necessary charges for the transaction. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
4. On the other hand the opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed their descriptive counters.
5. The 1st opposite party has filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant that the complaint is bad in law and not maintainable. The complainant is Non-Governmental Organization having all necessary registrations with all concerned authorities and its disciplined, dedicated service to the poor and needy interalia with developmental activities is not to the knowledge of this opposite party and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Further the 1st opposite party contended that the complainant organization is registered under FCRA Act and designated Bank account of the complainant is in the 1st opposite party Branch and it has been transacting with this opposite party for the past 30 years are correct. The Mumbai Branch transferred the said amount to 2nd opposite party on 05-03-2012 is correct. There is no deficiency of service on the party of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party maintained the account of the complainant. If the amount is received, it will be credited to the account immediately by this opposite party. Inspite of that when this opposite party came to know about non-credit of the amount, it has made its best efforts to trace out the amount. In fact, the remittance information was received by Mumbai Branch and the said Branch has informed the same to Overseas Branch, Hyderabad. This opposite party Branch has not received any information from both Branches either from Overseas Branch or from Mumbai Branch. It is stated that the remittance information was sent through On-Dot Courier Services from Overseas Branch, which was not received by this opposite party Branch. The courier service was not delivered to this opposite party Branch and it was also not returned to Overseas Branch. Immediately, the matter was taken to State Bank of India, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai Branch for email copy and arranged for credit of the remittance. So all efforts made by this opposite party branch and 2nd opposite party for procuring the information and crediting the amount. There are no lapses on the part of this opposite party. In fact this opposite party has made sincere efforts when the Branch came to know about non-remittance of the amount. In fact, the complainant had been benefited for non-remittance of the amount immediately to an extent of Rs.10,58,496/- due to the difference in Forex Rates and that itself is a great benefit to the complainant and he cannot have any grievance. In fact, as per the circulars of Reserve Bank of India, where there is a delayed collection on the part of the Bank, the interest @ 4% will be given. The complainant is not entitled to any interest beyond the said interest rate. In fact, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party in remitting the amount. Both the opposite parties are not liable for the amount claimed by the complainant. There is no consumer relation between the complainant and this opposite party. So basically the complaint itself is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. The 2nd opposite party has filed counter reiterating the averments mentioned in the counter of the 1st opposite party.
7. In order to establish the above respective contentions, on behalf of the complainant PW1 namely Rajen Joshua is examined on behalf of the complainant and in support of his oral testimony he also relied upon the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A6. On the other hand, on behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2, A.Seetharama Krishna is examined as RW1 and Rakes Kumar Singhala is examined as RW2. In support of their oral testimony, they also relied upon documentary evidence of Ex.B1.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Now the points that arise for determination are:
Whether the complainant comes under the definition of consumer and secondly whether the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay the amount as prayed by the complainant?
10. POINTS 1 & 2 – The admitted facts in this case are that the complainant’s organization is registered under FCRA Act and designated Bank account of the complainant is in the 1st opposite party branch. Further the complainant has been transacting with the 1st opposite party for the past 30 years. The Mumbai Branch transferred the amount to the 2nd opposite party on 05-03-2012. In view of the above admitted facts and in the light of the arguments on either side, we have scrutinized the available case records. The evidence on chief affidavit of complainant goes to show that it is registered under FCRA Act and designated Bank account of the complainant is in the 1st opposite party branch and it has been transacting with the 1st opposite party for the past 30 years. The above evidence of PW1 is not denied by the opposite parties 1 & 2 in this case. Even RW1 & RW2 also admitted the same in their chief affidavits. As such the complainant’s organization comes under the definition of consumer to the opposite parties.
11. In respect of the second point, the evidence of complainant is that the complainant as an account holder is a consumer and entitled to redress its grievance against the opposite parties for deficiency of service rendered to the complainant. In pursuance of the solemn understanding of Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement and time bound programme, the complainant was ordained to do Bio-Gas Programme. The understanding is that for every week the complainant has to deliver 360 units. In order to accomplish the task the funding agency remitted a sum of Rs.3,51,51,138/- equivalent to 526446 Euros by telegraphic transfer from EED, Germany on 23-02-2012, which is received at Mumbai Branch on 23-02-2012 itself. The said Mumbai Branch has transferred the amount to the 2nd opposite party on 05-03-2012 itself. The 2nd opposite party is bound to transfer the amount and credit it to the account of the complainant in 1st opposite party branch forthwith to enable the consumer to deal with his funds. The 2nd opposite party totally neglected in crediting the amount to the account of the complainant and as such the opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficiency in service to the complainant. The complainant’s bonafide enquiries revealed that with a view to augment their balance sheet on the end of the financial year retained the amount without crediting the same. Further the evidence of PW1 on his chief affidavit goes to show that on 21-04-2012 he addressed a letter to the 2nd opposite party claiming interest for delayed remittance by 47 days. The 2nd opposite party wrote a reply letter dt.25-04-2012 and informed that on basis on enquiry of 1st opposite party made on 07-04-2012, the 2nd opposite party came to know that the 1st opposite party has not received the cover sent through courier. The contents of the letter are totally false. The opposite parties retained the amount of Rs.3,51,51,138/- without crediting the same within reasonable time. The inordinate delay in remitting the amount in these days of advanced technology and claim made by the opposite parties that they are making best services and have infrastructure and commitment to clear banking transactions immediately amounts to gross deficiency in service rendered by them. The complainant is constrained to borrow the amount with exorbitant rates of interest to complete target to honour the binding agreement between the complainant and funding agency. The complainant was subjected to mental trauma in finding out the financiers and to face the workers, who are engaged in construction of Bio-Gas units. The mental agony suffered by the complainant has no bounds. The failure to remit the amount is visited with insurmountable difficulty and severe disruption of work and as such the opposite parties are bound to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties used money without remitting to the account of the complainant for a period of 47 days and unjustifiably retaining the amount for their own use entitles the complainant to claim interest @ 18% p.a. for a period of 47 days. In support of the above testimony of PW1, he also placed reliance on the following documents:
Ex.A1 - Letter of transfer of Euro 526446 from EED, Germany.
Ex.A2 – Letter from 1st opposite party to the complainant dt.10-04-0212
Ex.A3 – Letter from the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dt.21-04-2012.
Ex.A4 – Letter from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dt.25-04-2012.
Ex.A5 – Reply letter sent to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A6 – Letter of State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai dt.13-06-2012.
The above documentary evidence supported the oral testimony of PW1.
12. On the other hand the opposite parties have also adduced evidence through RW1 & RW2 and placed reliance on the document Ex.B1 – Clean instruments under section 4 from the banking authority. Testimony of RW1 & RW2 on their respective chief affidavits go to show that they have admitted that the complainant’s organization is having bank account with the 1st opposite party Branch and also admitted that the complainant has been transacting with the opposite parties for the past 30 years and further admitted that the Mumbai Branch transferred the said amount to the 2nd opposite party on 05-03-2012. The above clear admissions on the part of RW1 & RW2 strengthens the version of the complainant in respect of the amount of Rs.3,51,51,138/-, which was remitted by the funding agency and the same was received at Mumbai Branch on 23-02-2012 and the said branch transferred the said amount on 05-03-0212 to the 2nd opposite party. Further the evidence of RW1 & 2 on their chief affidavits go to show that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. RW1 maintained the account of the complainant. When RW1 came to know about non-credit of the amount it has made its best efforts to trace out the amount. In fact, the remittance information was received by Mumbai Branch and the said branch has informed the same to Overseas Branch, Hyderabad. This opposite party/RW1 has not received any information from both branches either from Overseas Branch, Hyderabad or Mumbai Branch. The remittance information was sent through on-dot courier service from Overseas Branch, which was not received by the Overseas Branch. Courier was not delivered to this opposite party and it was also not returned to Overseas Branch. Immediately the matter was taken it to State Bank of India Madam Cama Road, Mumbai Branch for email copy and arranged for credit of the remittance. So all efforts made by this opposite party branch and 2nd opposite party for procuring the information and crediting the amount. There is no lapse. Further the testimony of RW1 & 2 go to show that the complainant had been benefited for non-remittance of the amount immediately.
13. But the above testimony of RW1 & 2 with regard to their best efforts for procuring the information and crediting the amount within reasonable time is not supported with any documentary proof. RW1 & 2 ought to have been filed the correspondence made by them in order to prove their contentions in this case. But they failed to do so except marking Ex.B1, which is nothing but directions given by the Banking authorities to them in respect of compensation for delayed payments. Further the testimony of RW1 & 2 goes to show that the complainant had been benefited for non-remittance of the amount immediately, so it is nothing but an admission that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Further, the evidence of RW1 & 2 go to show that “ the complainant has been benefited for non-remittance of the amount immediately. It has been benefited to the extent of Rs.10,58,496/- due to the difference in Forex rates. That itself is a great benefit to the complainant and he cannot have any grievances. In fact, as per circulars of Reserve Bank of India where there is a delayed collection on the part of the bank, the interest rate @ 4% will be given. The complainant is not entitled to any interest beyond the said interest rate. “ The above testimony of RW1 & RW2 made it very clear that there is delayed remittance of the amount to the account of the complainant on their part. The contention of RW1 & RW 2 that the delayed remittance is benefited to the complainant appears to be very strange because getting interest on their deposits is left to the discretion of the customers of the Bank. But it is not the duty of the Bank to compel the customers to deposit the amounts in their Bank just for the sake of interest without noticing the needs of the customers. In the instant case, as per the contention of PW1 the complainant is a non-Governmental organization and enraged in social service in the development field of Penukonda area of Ananthapuramu District having its social activities in the field of agriculture and towards greener etc., For such social activities the complainant needs money. By retaining the funds of the complainant for 47 days by the opposite parties is nothing but depriving the complainant to attend its activities without any disruption in the work engaged by the complainant. So naturally there will be mental trauma to the complainant to cope up the situation without needful funds for the said relevant period. So the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. Further retaining the funds pertaining to the complainant for 47 days and remitting the same, for such abnormal delay is not justifiable. As such the opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. for a period of 47 days on Rs.3,51,51,138/- to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount to the complainant.
14. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant and also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.3,51,51,138/- for a period of 47 days and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 31st day of October, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
PW1 – Rajen Joshua, Executive Director RW1 - Sri A.Seetharama Krishna, Branch Manager.
of complainant’s society. Rw2 - Sri Rakesh Kumar Singhala
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Letter of transfer of Euro 526446 from EED, Germany.
Ex.A2 – Letter from 1st opposite party to the complainant dt.10-04-0212
Ex.A3 – Letter from the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dt.21-04-2012.
Ex.A4 – Letter from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dt.25-04-2012.
Ex.A5 – Reply letter sent to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A6 – Letter of State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai dt.13-06-2012.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 – Clean instruments under section 4 from the banking authority.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
