State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Thomas Cajetan Sequeira, vs Chief Manager on 23 July, 2012
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI GOA Appeal No. 37/2011 Mr. Thomas Cajetan Sequeira, r/o. House No. 116, Bonglo/Chichant, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. Appellant/Complainant v/s 1. Chief Manager ING VYSYA Bank Ltd., Registered and Corporate Office, ING VYSYA House 22, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560001. 2. Branch Manager ING VYSYA Bank Ltd., M.G. Road, Panaji Goa Respondent/O.P. Appellant/Complainant is absent. Respondent/O.P. is represented by Adv. Shri. U.R. Timble Coram: Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President Shri Jagdish Prabhudesai, Member Dated: 23/07/2012 ORDER
[Per Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President] This is a complainants appeal and is directed against order dated 20/10/11 of the Lr. District Forum, North Goa at Porvorim by which the complaint has been dismissed.
2. The complainant has chosen to remain absent on 29/06/12, 16/07/12 as well as today.
Instead of dismissing the appeal for non prosecution, we propose to decide the same on merits. (in view of order dated 12/12/05 of the National Commission in RP No. 1922/04 of Deepak Jaiswal)
3. We have heard Shri. U. R. Timble, the Lr.
Advocate on behalf of the O.P.
4. The O.P. is one, namely, ING VYSYA Bank Ltd., as rightly noted by the Lr. District Forum in the first para of the impugned order. The Complainant had an account with the O.P. bearing No. 547010035697. The complainant did not specify what was the type of his account. According to the O.P. complainants account was a NRE account.
5. The complainant, an NRI, used to remit sometimes money in foreign currency to his said account. On 19/09/08 the complainant remitted through the National Bank of Greece a sum of US $ 10,000/- to the said account. The remittance was made with a request to keep the said amount in dollars and with a further request that, if any time the complainants wife required some money then some of it could be changed into Indian rupees. According to the complainant, he had also requested the O.P. that in case there was any problem with regard to his instructions, the complainant should be informed accordingly. This part of the story of the complainant has been denied by the O.P. The complainant has also not produced the email dated 20/09/08 sent at 8.33 p.m. but has produced an email dated 4/10/08 presumably sent by the complainant to his wife. According to O.P., as stated in the affidavit of Shri. Abhishek Baheti, the complainant had not given any other instruction except allowing his wife to withdraw the amount in Rupees.
6. The O.P. converted the said amount into Rupees and credited the same to the account of the complainant presumably at the prevailing rate of exchange i.e Rs. 45/- per US dollar.
7. Contending that the complainant lost conversion at the rate of Rs. 54/- per US dollar by not adhering to his instructions the complainant filed the complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 90,000/- with interest and Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation.
8. According to the O.P., they had no choice but to convert the currency into Indian Rupees and credit the same to the account of the complainant and their action is bonafide and according to FEMA guidelines pertaining to NRE accounts.
According to them, an NRI like the complainant could only deposit money in his account in INR unless it was specifically stated that the remittance was to be kept in FCNR deposit. Except for the purpose of FCNR account, there is no provision to hold the foreign inward remittance in foreign currency for an indefinite period.
9. The complaint came to be dismissed by the Lr. District Forum, inter alia, observing that the O.P. could not be held legally liable for converting the amount sent by the complainant in foreign currency into INR and crediting the same to the account of the complainant. The Lr. District Forum also held that the complainant had not informed the O.P. that the amount be kept in FCNR deposit.
10. One of the grievances made by the complainant in the appeal is that the O.P. had not established or justified their actions of converting the foreign remittance into Indian currency inspite of clear cut instructions to the contrary from the complainant. Further contention of the complainant is that the impugned order was passed in haste without even asking the O.P. to produce on record the provision of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999) and RBI guidelines which the O.P. claim provide ample powers to them to convert foreign remittance into Indian currency inspite of contrary instructions thereto.
11. Be that as it may, if the complainant had not produced the email dated 20/09/08 sending the said remittance of US $ 10,000/- likewise the O.P. has not produced the clarifications sought by them from the Reserve Bank of India vide their letter dated 30/03/09 or the clarification obtained from the RBI, as referred to in their written version.
12. We have perused the records.
13. At the time of hearing, Shri. Timble has produced for our perusal Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2000 issued under section 47 of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999) and the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India which show different types of accounts which can be maintained by an NRI with an authorised Bank.
14. Regulation 2 (ii) defines authorised bank to mean a bank including a co-operative bank (other than an authorized dealer) authorised by the Reserve Bank to maintain an account of a person resident outside India. Different types of accounts are defined as follows:
v) FCNR(B) account means a Foreign Currency Non-Resident (Bank) account referred to in clause (ii) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5;
vii) NRE account means a Non-Resident external account referred to in clause (i) of sub-
regulation ( 1) of Regulation 5;
viii) NRO account means a Non-Resident ordinary account referred to in clause (iii) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5;
ix) NRNR account means a Non-Resident Non-Repatriable account referred to in clause (iv) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5;
x) NRSR account means a Non-Resident (Special) Rupee account referred to in clause (v) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5.
15. Regulation 5 deals with acceptance of deposits by an authorised dealer/authorised bank from persons resident outside India in the said different types of accounts.
16. As per the guidelines issued by the RBI, an FCNR (B) account can be maintained in any freely convertible currency. A NRE account can be maintained in Indian Rupees and the balances held are freely repatriable. Likewise, an NRO account is also to be maintained in Indian Rupees.
17. We have already stated that the complainant did not specify what is the type of account he held with the O.P. and the O.P. has stated that the complainant had with them a NRE account which fact have not be disputed by the complainant and that being the position the O.P. was right in accepting the remittance sent by the complainant in foreign currency and converting the same in INR and crediting the amount in INR in the account of the complainant.
The complainant ought to have known what were the facilities which were available to him when he opened the said NRE account with the O.P. Only because the complainant gave instructions to maintain the remittance in foreign currency, the O.P. was not bound to accede to the same disregarding the guidelines issued by the RBI.
18. In view of the standing instructions from the RBI the O.P. could not be faulted in disregarding the instructions of the complainant to retain the remittance in US dollars only or converting the same in INR and crediting the same to the account of the complainant.
19. In our view there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. The complaint has been rightly dismissed. We find there is no merit in this appeal and consequently the same is hereby dismissed and considering the facts, with no order as to costs.
[Shri. Jagdish Prabhudesai] [Shri Justice N.A. Britto] MEMBER PRESIDENT