The State Bank of Mysore, The Bank of India, Malleswaram Branch, The State Bank of Mysore, Sagar Branch,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:13.06.2007 Date of Order: 09.01.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1170 OF 2007 H.V. Subba Rao, S/o Late H.K. Visweswaraiah, Occ: Business, R/at Punyakoti, No.2, II A Cross, Nagarabhavi Village, Bangalore-560 072. Complainant V/S 1) The State Bank of Mysore, Head Office, Mysore Bank Circle, K.G. Road, Bangalore-560 009, Represented by its Manager. 2) The State Bank of Mysore, Sagar Branch, Sagar, Shimoga, Represented by its Manager. 3) The Bank of India, Malleswaram Branch, 11th Cross, Margosa Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003, Represented by its Asst. General Manager. Opposite Partie ORDER This complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that, the complainant is doing business in Bangalore. He is holding Over Draft Account with opposite party No.3 and also holding SB A/c. with opposite party No.2 branch at Sagar. The complainant had entered into an agreement for sale to purchase Areca Garden for a sale consideration of Rs.49,00,000/-. He had obtained loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opposite parties to pay the balance sale consideration. He had deposited sum of Rs.2,75,000/- in his Over Draft Account with opposite party No.3 Bank. On 25/9/2006 he had arranged to transfer of sum of Rs.22,75,000/- from opposite party No.3 Bank through RTGS to his SB A/c in the opposite party No.2 Bank at Sagar. Opposite party No.3 assured him that the amount directed to be transferred to the opposite party No.2 through RTGS would be effective on the same day. Opposite party No.3 collected Rs.2,500/- for transfer of amount through RTGS. He visited opposite party No.2 Bank on 26/9/2006 to withdraw the amount. However, opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that Bank had not received the amount from the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 did not credited the amount to his SB Account. Since the complainant has failed to pay the balance consideration amount his vendors as per the agreement dated 24/3/2006 by the end of September-2006, his vendors have rescinded the agreement. He had written letter dated 16/10/2006 and 21/10/2006 to opposite party No.2 to send back the amount to opposite party No.3 with interest. Complainant came to know that opposite party No.2 credited the amount transferred through RTGS to his S.B A/c on 16/10/2006. Opposite party No.2 in spite of the request made by the complainant to send back the amount to opposite party No.3, he had delayed the same by almost a week and sent it back only on 25/10/2006. Opposite party No.3 charged a sum of Rs.20,880/- towards interest on the loan barrowed by the complainant for 28 days. There is negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2 in not crediting the amount for more than 20 days and again committed negligence in not sending back the amount from 16/10/2006 to 25/10/2006. The vendors refused to execute the sale deed in respect of the property. Complainant underwent serious mental agony. Opposite party No.3 is also responsible to see that amount sent through RTGS should be reached to the opposite party No.2. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant demanded to indemnify him the loss he had incurred. Unfortunately opposite parties did nit care to compensate the complainant. Complainant had sent letter on 16/10/2006 and 21/10/2006 to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 not even care to the letters written by the complainant. There was no compelling reason for the opposite party No.2 to cause delay in crediting the amount and also sending the amount back to the opposite party No.3. Therefore, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay sum of Rs.22,28,380/- with interest and costs. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 and 2 have filed their defense version through advocate, likewise the opposite party No.3 Bank of India has also filed separate defense version. Opposite party No.1 and 2 submitted that, the opposite party No.1 and 2 are not aware of the agreement between the complainant and K. Mahabaleswara Bhat dated 24/3/2006 regarding purchase of land. Complainant opened an S.B A/c with State Bank of Mysore, Sagar Branch on 16/8/2006. Regarding transfer of funds from one Bank to another Bank there is a system known as Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) in regard to the transfer of fund of Rs.22,75,000/- from opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.2. The RTGS advice No.162524 dated 25/9/2006 was received by opposite party No.2 on 16/10/2006 and entry was passed on the same day. It is stated that, the RTGS advise although dated 16/10/2006 was exclusively received by the Bank on 21/10/2006 as 20/10/2006 and 22/10/2006 were holidays. The proceeds were effected in the account of the complainant on 23/10/2006. The complainant gave two letters for transfer of funds to opposite party No.3 same was retransmitted to the opposite party No.3 on 23/10/2006. There was absolutely no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2. It was not correct to contend that opposite party No.2 received the amount sent by opposite party No.3 through RTGS on 25/9/2006 itself. On verification of facts agreement of sale dated 24/3/2006 between complainant and his vendors lapsed after three months from the date of agreement. Complainant is not entitled for a sum of Rs.12,28,380/-. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 and 2 prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. Opposite party No.3 in its defense version admitted that the complainant is holding Over Draft Account with opposite party No.3. Complainant deposited sum of Rs.2,75,000/- in his Over Draft Account and instructed opposite party No.3 to transfer sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to S.B A/c through RTGS at opposite party No.2 Bank. Opposite party No.3 collected sum of Rs.2,500/- for transfer of the amount. Opposite party No.2 credited the amount transferred through RTGS to his S.B A/c on 16/10/2006 is not within the knowledge of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 contacted officials of opposite parties and confirmed that they are in receipt of money. The opposite party No.3 Bank in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- is admitted as true. Opposite party No.3 Bank is not responsible to make good the loss caused to the complainant. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.3. Therefore, the opposite party No.3 requested to dismiss the complaint. 4. Affidavit evidence of complainant is filed and the affidavit evidence of opposite parties also filed. Arguments are heard. 5. The point for consideration is:- Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? REASONS 6. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the complainant is holding Over Draft Account with the opposite party No.3 and he has also having S.B A/c with opposite party No.2 at Sagar. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- in his Over Draft Account at opposite party No.3 Bank on 23rd December-2006. It is also admitted fact that on 25/9/2006 he had arranged to transfer a sum of Rs.22,75,000/- from opposite party No.3 Bank through RTGS to his S.B A/c in the opposite party No.3 Bank at Sagar. The complainant has produced statement of account of Bank of India. By perusing the statement of account, it is very clear that on 23/9/2006 Rs.2,75,000/- was credited to his account and on 25/9/2006 sum of Rs.22,75,000/- was debited to his account and for RTGS customer payment. These facts are not disputed. The complainant has produced statement of his S.B A/c of opposite party No.2 State Bank of Mysore, Sagar Branch. As per the statement of 16/10/2006 Rs.22,75,000/- was credited to the S.B A/c of the complainant by the opposite party No.2 Bank. So, as per the Bank statement, it is very clear that on 25/9/2006 itself Rs.22,75,000/- was debited to the account of complainant for RTGS customer payment. The amount sent through RTGS should have been credited to the S.B A/c of the complainant on the same day. The complainant has relied upon RTGS (membership) business operating guidelines, 2004. As per these guidelines the funds have to be credited to the beneficiary customers account within two hours of the receipt of the customer payment (credit) notification at the PI of the recipient Bank. But in this case the grievance of the complainant is that the amount sent by SBI through RTGS on 25/9/2006 had not been credited to his S.B A/c at SBM, Sagar till 16/10/2006. Therefore, it is very clear that there was a delay of 21 days in crediting the funds in the S.B A/c of complainant. Therefore, this is clearly a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. As per the RTGS guidelines the funds should have been credited to the beneficiary account within two hours on 25/9/2006 itself. The complainant is definitely suffered on account of the delay made by the opposite parties in crediting the amount in his S.B A/c. It is the case of the complainant that he had entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the property for Rs.49,00,000/- and he was to pay the consideration amount to his vendors out of the fund raised from the Bank. But cause of delay in getting the amount through RTGS he could not pay the consideration amount to his vendors and therefore, the sale transaction has been cancelled. The complainant has made a case that, he requested the opposite party No.2 Bank on 16/10/2006 and also on 21/10/2006 by a letter to send the amount back to the opposite party No.3 Bank. It is also the case of the complainant that, though he has requested opposite party No.2 Bank to send back the amount to opposite party No.3 on 16/10/2006 itself, but the amount reached to the opposite party No.3 Bank on 23/10/2006. The statement of account of SBI clearly reveals and disclose that on 23/10/2006 an amount of Rs. 22,75,000/- was credited to the Over Draft Account of complainant. Therefore, again there is a delay on the part of the opposite party No.2 in sending the amount back to opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 has made 7 days delay in sending the amount back to opposite party No.3. Admittedly, the complainant has not received the amount either from opposite party No.3 or from opposite party No.2. As per the statement of account of opposite party No.3 an interest of Rs.17,079/- was debited to the account of complainant for the period from 26/9/2006 to 19/10/2006. It is the case of the complainant that, he has not at all liable to pay the interest charged by opposite party No.3 since the amount has not been reached to complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the interest debited to his account is illegal and without any basis. The complainant has also stated that, he is not liable to pay charges for RTGS of Rs. 2,500/- debited to his account. The purpose for which the loan was obtained had not been fulfilled. Therefore, ultimately the complainant did not receive the loan amount from the opposite parties. By the statement of account by the opposite parties, it is very clear that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not acted promptly as per the instructions of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot be burdened or saddled with the interest and the charges for sending the amount. The opposite parties being public Banks they should discharge their duties very promptly without any delay. But in this case by perusing the statement of account of both the Banks, it is very clear that the opposite parties have made delay in transmitting the amount from SBI to SBM and likewise from the SBM, Sagar to SBI, Bangalore. Therefore, the complainant definitely entitled for the relief for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the cancellation of agreement of sale entered by him for purchase of property. This compensation cannot be awarded to the complainant. He cannot link the Banking transaction with the transaction of sale and purchase. The agreement of sale entered into by the complainant with his vendors is nothing to do with the Banking transactions made by him. They cannot held responsible for the cancellation of sale transaction. The Banks are not directly involved in the sale transaction and the Banks cannot take notice of the sale transaction or agreement of sale entered into by the complainant and his vendors. There is no nexus between the Bank transaction and the agreement of sale. The complainant has produced agreement of sale dated 24/3/2006. As per this agreement of sale the sale transaction has to be completed within three months from the date of agreement. Therefore, as per the terms of agreement the complainant could have taken sale deed before the end of June-2006. But in this case, the complainant has taken loan in the month of September-2006 and he has instructed opposite party No.3 for sending the amount through RTGS on 25/9/2006. Therefore, long before the Banking transaction the agreement of sale entered into by the complainant with his vendors came to an end. The complainant had not taken sale deed within three months from the date of agreement. Therefore, the sale transaction came to be cancelled. Therefore, the Banks cannot be blamed for not materializing the sale transaction. The complainant is not entitled to the compensation for the breach of sale agreement or cancellation of sale transaction. Complainant has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case to grant Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony. No doubt the complainant had suffered sum inconvenience and he has spent some time, energy and money for completing the Banking transaction. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation reasonably for the time and energy spent by him in dealing with the Bank. The complainant is entitled for refund of the interest charged on the amount because, absolutely there is no liability on the part of the complainant to pay the interest on Rs.2,00,000/-. The opposite parties are not entitled to get benefit by way of interest when the amount has not been reached to the beneficiary at all. The amount remained with the opposite parties Banks only. Therefore, the opposite parties shall be directed to pay Rs.17,079/- the interest charged as per the statement of account of SBI with costs and compensation of Rs.2,000/-. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER / 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.17,079/- to the complainant. 8. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. 9. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2008. Order accordingly, MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
