State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Amar Singh Bhadauria on 12 July, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 12.07.2007 Appeal No.254/2003 (Arising from the order dated 25.01.2003 passed by District Forum(West) Janak Pur, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.166/2002) 1. Branch Manager .. Appellants. State Bank of India, Mayapuri, New Delhi. 2. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, B-2, C-Block, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. 3. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 4. Deputy General Manager, Zone-I, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Versus Sh. Amar Singh Bhadauria .. Respondent. A-129, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. Respondent claims himself to be an astrologer of repute and has saving bank account with the appellant bank at Mayapuri Branch. His devotees often send gifts. On 19.04.2000 one of his devotees sent such gift by way of Swift Transfer USD 2000, which was not credited in the account of the respondent and as a consequence he could not visit London and got his flight cancelled and left his clients high and dry and suffered loss of reputation. Feeling aggrieved he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.4,72,165/- by way of following components:
i.
Conveyance, Fax, telephone etc. : Rs.18,000/-
ii.
Three times tickets cancellation charges : Rs.1,600/-
iii.
Cost of Air Ticket :Rs.84,000/-
iv.
Funds spent in visit : Rs.20,565/-
v.
Loss of business in India till 11.05.2000 : Rs.28,000/-
vi.
Loss of gifts from abroad : Rs.2,00,000/-
vii.
Reputation lost (international), mental Agony, harassment and humiliation : Rs.1,20,000/-
Total : Rs.4,72,165/-
2. Vide impugned order dated 25.11.2003, passed by the District Forum, the complaint of the respondent was allowed directing the appellant to make following payments:
i.
Conveyance, Fax, telephone etc. : Rs.5,000/-
ii.
Three times tickets cancellation charges : Rs.1,600/-
iii.
Compensation/damages for loss of Earning, reputation and mental tension : Rs.50,000/-
In Addition we also award cost of litigation Rs.2,500/-
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. It is not disputed that USD2000 was remitted by M/s. Gyatri Fashions Limited through Bank of Baroda, Mauritius on 19.04.2000 by Swift Transfer for crediting in the account of the respondent in the State Bank of India, Mayapuri in his saving account No.60235. Bank of Baroda, Mauritius transferred this amount to its branch at New York on the same day. The New York Branch of Baroda Bank also immediately credited this amount to SBI, New York for immediate transfer to respondents account. Messages were also sent by Bank of Baroda. Respondent on receipt of the copy of the messages followed up the matter with the officers of SBI Branch, Mayapuri and Commercial Branch of the State Bank of India.
As the matter was getting delayed he also filed a complaint before Banking Ombudsman on 03.05.2000 and sent a copy of the complaint to the State Bank of India, Mayapuri. The respondents account was credited on 11.05.2000 with an amount of USD 1955 balance as USD 45 out of 2000 dollars were deducted as Swift Transfer Charges.
5. The appellant bank denied the allegations and damages claimed by the respondent by taking the plea that the respondent has not come with clean hands as Rs.375/- was credited to the respondents account by way of interest whereas the actual advice was received in the State Bank at Naraina on 10.05.2000 and the account of respondent was credited on 11.05.2000. The Counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Forum has not appreciated the credibility of the respondent that he was depending upon the remittance of USD 2000 only for his tour to attend his pre-fixed meetings and appointments within the specific knowledge of the respondent while on the other hand the appellant was neither expected nor was made aware of this fact.
6. It is further contended that the respondent withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 23.05.2000, Rs.20,565/- on 22.06.2000 and Rs.53,991/- on 23.06.2000 from his account, therefore it is not understandable as to why the money was withdrawn so late if the need of the respondent was so urgent when the credit in the account of the respondent was given on 11.05.2000 itself.
7. Taking the rival claims and contentions of the parties into consideration we do not find any reason to differ with the finding of facts returned by the District Forum that all the concerned branches of the State Bank in India( Mayapuri and Naraina) and New York did not act with urgency required for Swift Transfer, whereas the Bank of Baroda at Mauritius and New York credited this amount to the New York Branch of SBI on the same day i.e. on 19.04.2000 and Maya Puri branch acted only when it got a copy of the complaint from the Bank Ombudsman and therefore there has certainly been delay in transfer of the amount. With advance means of communication the remittance advice transfer should not have taken more than 4-5 days or at the most a week when the amount was for Swift Transfer and requisite fee was deducted/charged and therefore the appellant was certainly deficient in service.
8. However, in our view for such deficiency the service provider is required to compensate a person not as to actual loss or injury suffered by him. No official of the bank is supposed or expected to know as to what kind of client has opened the account and what is his profession and what are his difficulties. Deficiency in service has to be adjudged independently and if there is some delay in transferring the amount reasonable compensation can be awarded and not the imaginary or whimsical compensation.
9. In our view lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- besides cost of litigation of Rs.2,500/-, would meet the ends of justice.
10. In the result the appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 12th day of July 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri