ARJUN LAL AGGARWAL vs State Bank of India

WHETHER gross delay in effectuating a telegraphic transfer remittance to a consumer would be a deficiency in the service of "Banking"? This indeed is the solitary crucial question in this complaint.

THE facts merit notice with relative brevity. THE complainant was the recipient of a telegraphic remittance of Rs. 1,50,000/- sent to him by Dr. R.L''. Aggarwal on the 21st of May, 1991 from the United Kingdom through the Lloyds Bank of England for transmission to the complainant''s account in the Mohindergarh Branch of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the S.B.I.). THE aforesaid amount was despatched as a wedding gift for the complainant''s sister Angoori, whose marriage was scheduled for the 4th of July, 1991. THE primal grievance of the complainant is that the said amount was not credited to his account till the 30th of November, 1991 i.e. more than six months after the date on which it had been transmitted by a telegraphic transfer which is the most expeditious method of remittance in banking practice. A grievance is made that the complainant was thus deprived of the said amount which was sorely needed for the wedding expenses and otherwise his family suffered extreme mental anguish and tension as a result of the non-receipt of the money. Aggrieved thereby a legal notice dated 17th of March, 1992 was served on the S.B.I. Bombay Branch. THE said Opposite Party No.2 replied to the same by its communication dated 25th of April, 1992 in which they attempted to shift the entire blame for the gross delay in crediting the said amount to M/s. ANZ Grindlays Bank, Bombay. Copy thereof is Annexure-A to the complaint. THE complainant''s Counsel thereafter, by communication (Annexure-B) dated 17th of June, 1992 required Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Grindlays Bank to explain its position. THE latter vide their reply dated 24th of June, 1992, however, denied all fault or liability in this connection and enclosed Photostat copies of the Lloyds Bank payment instructions as well as covering letter to Opposite Party No.2 sent along with their cheque for transmission to the complainant''s account with the Opposite Party No. 1. According to them this cheque was duly cashed by the Bombay Branch of the S.B.I, on the 29th of May, 1991. THE said letters also enclosed Annexures C & D to the complaint, with regard to the action initiated by the Grindlays Bank with the S.B.I. THE complainant''s Counsel, thereafter, reiterated their claim against Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 9th of July, 1992 (Annexure E). However in reply thereto the S.B.I. Bombay Branch rejected the claim and disclaimed all fault or liability vide Annexure F. THE complainant relied upon all the correspondence inter-se betwixt the parties and the care of the grievance is that even in the context of the telegraphic transfer, receipt of the remittance was delayed beyond six months which is a grave deficiency in the banking service which the Opposite Parties had undertaken to render to their clients or their beneficiaries. A pecuniary relief to the tune of Rs. 1,22,375/- along with interest at the rate of 24% thereon has been claimed. In the reply filed on behalf of Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 a number of preliminary objections have been raised to which reference is unnecessary because these were rejected by a separate reasoned order pronounced on the 23rd of August, 1993 which apparently has achieved finality. On merits, it was admitted that the amount sent by Grind lays Bank was duly credited to the complainant''s account No. 11866 at Mohindergarh Branch of the S.B.I, on the 30th of November, 1991. It was alleged that this was sent by Grindlays Bank on the 31st of October, 1991 to the Bank''s Branch at Bombay. Further plea taken was that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- sent by Grindlays Bank on the 25th of May, 1991 to the S.B.I. Branch at Bombay was received and credited, but the name of the concerned Branch where it was to be sent had not been specified. The said amount was re-credited back to the Grindlays Bank account. It was the plea that only on the 31st of October, 1991 the Grind lays Bank again sent this amount with proper specification and description of the Branch to the S.B.I, and, thereafter, the same was remitted to the Mohindergarh Branch on the 30th of November, 1991 without any inordinate delay in the usual course of business of banking. The averment with regard to the marriage of the complainant''s sister was denied for want of knowledge. The other allegations in the complaint were labelled as sketchy and denied for want of knowledge but the exchange of legal notices and correspondence was fairly admitted. The stand is that the delay if any in the transmission of the amount is not attributable to either the Bombay or Mohindergarh Branch of the S.B.I., and the blame therefore is sought to be shifted on to the Grindlays Bank.

The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. ANZ Grindlays Bank in their written statement have also raised as many as five preliminary objections which do not now merit further reference because of their rejection by the aforementioned earlier order dated 23rd of August, 1993. On merits, the contents of Para No. 1 of the complaint are admitted as also the crediting of the remitted amount to the complainant''s account on the 30th of November, 1991. The averments with regard to the complainant''s sister''s marriage etc. are also denied for want of knowledge, and the period to which most of the allegations pertained is said to be in the S.B.I. Branches at Bombay and Mohindeigarh. It is, however, forcefully pleaded that the attempt of the latter to shift any blame to M/s. Grind lays Bank is patently erroneous and wrong and it is not in any way responsible to share any loss or damage caused for the patent delay in the remittance. It is pleaded that M/s. Grind lays Bank had with great expedition on the receipt of the telegraphic payment instructions from the Lloyds Bank of London forwarded the same to the S.B.I, payable to Mr. Arjun Lal through its main Bombay Branch. It is the case that the instructions in this regard were complete in all respect and further provided by the covering letter of M/s. Grindlays Bank to the Bombay Branch of the S.B.I. It is the case that only when the communication dated 17th of August, 1991 from S.B.I. Mohindergarh and letter of R.L. Aggarwal was received with regard to the non-receipt of the funds the question was taken up with the S.B.I. Branch at Bombay. It is pointed out that the proceeds of the cheque sent by the Opposite Party No. 3 to the S.B.I. Bombay Branch was re-credited to their account but curiously no advice to this effect was provided. Only on learning about this fact the latter amount was again remitted through the S.B.I, on the 31st of October, 1991 with the identical details available as per the original telex payment instructions. It is, therefore, the plea that no fault lies on Opposite Party No. 3 and reliance is placed on Annexure-G to the complaint itself. Reference is made to the communication dated 24th of June, 1992 for its true scope and interpretation and the exchange of correspondence betwixt the complainant and the S.B.I. Though tacitly the delay in the transmission of the amount is admitted. Any joint or several liability therefore is expressly denied and apparently all blame therefore is attributed to the S.B.I.

THE complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party reiterating the earlier stand and elaborating the same wherever necessary. In support of the case, the primal reliance is on Annexure A to G, which were annexed to the complaint and the authenticity whereof was not challenged. THE affidavit evidence consist primarily of the somewhat exhaustive averments of Arjun Lal, complainant himself supported by the testimony of Ram Kumar, Subey Singh and Sumer Singh, who deposed with regard to the ancillary stand of having extended loans to the complainant for his sister''s wedding at so high a rate of interest at 40% or above. THE deponents were cross-examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties without however, eliciting anything substantially meaningful in support of the defense. The State Bank of India put in the affidavit of Shri K. Seshadri, its Assistant Manager at the main branch at Bombay. He was cross-examined at considerable length on behalf of the complainant and the Opposite Party No. 3, which made sizeable dents in the pleas taken up by this Opposite Party. On behalf of M/s. ANZ Grind lays Bank reliance was placed mainly on the documentary evidence on the record without adducing any affidavit evidence. The code directory of the State Bank of India''s branches was produced for reference at the time of arguments.

MR. Ashok Aggarwal the learned Counsel for the complainant''s main plank was that a telegraphic transfer in banking practice was one of the quickest mode of transmitting money even in international transactions. It was the stand that Dr. R.L. Aggarwal had in terms resorted to this method by transmitting amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to ensure the quick receipt thereof by the complainant for the urgent needs of his sister''s marriage. Nevertheless it was now common ground that the said amount was not credited to the complainant''s account at Mohindergarh till as late as the 30th of November, 1991. Consequently it was projected that the gross delay of nearly six months was a patent deficiency in the banking service and either of the two Opposite Parties were patently liable therefore. Though initially somewhat at sea MR. Aggarwal ultimately pinned this liability squarely on the State Bank of India and claimed massive relief not only for the delay in payment but the grave stress and mental harassment to the complainant for having been denuded of the amount when it was sorely needed for the marriage of his sister with all its social compulsions in India. Perhaps at the very outset it may be noticed that because of the admitted delay of nearly six months in the transmission of the telegraphic transfer both the State Bank of India and the Grind lays Bank have not seriously challenged the patent banking default herein. However the attempt of either of the two Opposite Parties was to shift the burden on to the other. In appraising the rival stands of the parties the threshold question plainly is with regard to the nature of a telegraphic transfer in the service of banking. On behalf of the complainant the firm stand was that this was the quickest and in any case one of the most expeditious mode of remitting money not only within a country but all over the globe. This stand because of its obvious merit has not been seriously challenged on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Their learned Counsel did not deny that resort to a telegraphic transfer is made only when the amount is to be remitted with the utmost expedition possible and consequently the charges for the said banking service are proportionate to its efficiency. It has consequently to be held as the settled matter of banking practice that a telegraphic transfer remittance is to be forwarded with the fullest expedition and the bankers who undertake to do so are obliged to a duty of care to ensure that the transmitted amount reaches the recipient at the earliest reasonable time. What is enjoined by the banking service of a telegraphic transfer is also evident in the present case as the matter of actual fact and Annexure-D to the complaint and the said view established that by virtue of the telegraphic instructions given by Dr. R.L. Aggarwal on 21st of May, 1991 from United Kingdom the said amount was transmitted through the Lloyds Bank of London and ANZ Grindlays Bank to the main Bombay Branch of the State Bank of India by the 25th of May within 4 days. It is common ground that initially the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was duly received by the State Bank of India, Bombay Branch with firm instructions to credit it to Shri Arjun Lal Aggarwal, Account No. 11866 in the Mohindergarh Branch of the State Bank of India. The speed and expedition with which the aforesaid amount originally in foreign currency was transmitted to the State Bank of India main Bombay Branch is thus writ large on the record in actual practice as well. It has, therefore, to be held both as a matter of theory and practice that an international telegraphic remittance is one of the quickest prescribed banking methodology for expeditious remittances of money all over the world.

ONCE it is held as above, it is obvious that the Opposite Parties had extended out their banking services for crediting the said amount to the complainant''s Account No. 11866 in the Mohindergarh Branch of the State Bank of India within the quickest possible time of its dispatch on the 21st of May, 1991. However, it is now the admitted position on the present record that the complainant did not receive the said amount till as late as 30th of November, 1991. There is thus a delay of six months in transmitting the amount even though the banker''s clients had resorted to the quickest method available for transferring the amount apparently for an urgent need. In the context of a telegraphic transfer remittance a delay of six months for reaching out the amount to its recipient is thus a patent deficiency in the banking service.

THOUGH the matter is otherwise transparent Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the complainant has rightly placed reliance on 1991(2) C.P.R. 236 and 1991 (2) C.P.R. 617. The said authorities undoubtedly buttress his case precedently though it is otherwise equally strong on larger principle as well. In view of the above the answer to the question posed at the very outset has to be rendered in affirmative and it is held that the gross delay in effectuating a telegraphic transfer remittance to a consumer would be a patent deficiency in the service of banking.

In view of the aforesaid conclusion and equally admitted delay of six months for transmitting the amount the solitary issue that now survives is as to which of the two opposite parties is to be held liable for this default within the consumer jurisdiction.

APPARENTLY bereft of a meaningful argument on merits, Mr. Lavleen Gandhi, the learned Counsel for the State Bank of India had to fall back upon technicalities. It was sought to be argued that the complainant herein was not a consumer and there was no direct privity of contract betwixt him and the S.B.I. The specious submission was that the original sender Dr. R.L. Aggarwal alone could be deemed a consumer qua the bank and not the recipient of the telegraphic remittance. The argument aforesaid has only to be noticed and rejected. Obviously, the question herein is with regard to the hiring of banking services and the relevant part of the definition of consumer, which would be applicable is sub clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Section 2(1) of the Act. This may be noticed in extenso : "Consumer" means any person who : - (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or awaits of) the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person."

A plain reading of the above would leave no manner of doubt that the legislature in its wisdom had extended the concept of a consumer not only to the original hirer of services, but equally to any beneficiary of such services as well. Obviously, enough, there can be no manner of doubt that the complainant being the recipient of a large amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- through a telegraphic remittance was the primal beneficiary of the banking services hired by the original transferor. It seems unnecessary to labour the point on principle, because it is more than amply covered by an earlier decision of this Commission in II (1991) CPJ 90 ''Dr. B.S. Sidhu v. The Secretary, Central Govt. Post & Telegraph Department & Ors. Therein, after an indepth discussion, it was concluded as follows : "In the light of the above, the answer to the first limb of the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative. It is held that a person other than the original consumer, who hires any services namely, a beneficiary thereof can also maintain a complaint for any alleged deficiency therein under the Act."

The aforesaid ratio completely covers the case and it necessarily follows that the complainant would squarely come within the ambit of the definition of a consumer and, therefore, competent to maintain the proceedings. Adverting now to the apportioning of the blame and the patent deficiency in services, it is somewhat obvious that the same has to be laid squarely at the door of the State Bank of India. It is the common and admitted ground that within four days of the direction to make the telegraphic transfer on the 21st of May, 1991 in United Kingdom M/s. ANZ Grindlays Bank acting for the Lloyds Bank of London transmitted the amount to the main Bombay Branch of the State Bank of India. It is conceded that the said amount was credited to the State Bank of India with the requisite instructions by the 25th of May, 1991 itself. Annexure ''D'' to the complaint, which is an admitted document and conveyed the relevant instructions to the State Bank of India, expressly mentioned the beneficiary customer as Shri Arjun Lal. Not only that the account number of the said Arjun Lal to which the amount was to be transmitted and credited was expressly mentioned & specified as Account No.11866 in the State Bank of India, Mahendergarh Branch, Haryana. The details of the payment mentioned that the amount was being sent as a wedding gift for Anguri under the orders of Dr. R.L. Aggarwal of the United Kingdom. That the particulars were complete to the minutest detail is thus writ large on the record. Nevertheless, the Bombay Branch of the State Bank treated the matter of a telegraphic transfer, somewhat cavalierly and the specious plea taken is that the remittance having been duly received was credited back by making some internal entries in the account of M/s. ANZ Grindlays Bank. It is common ground that no advice with regard to the same was at all sent to M/s. Grind lays Bank that the amount was being re-credited. Curiously, even in the context of a remittance of this size, the State Bank of India made no enquiry from M/s. Grind lays Bank or to seek any particulars, which according to them were lacking.

YET again what deserves highlighting is the fact that ultimately it was conceded that there was only one branch of the State Bank of India at Mahendergarh in Haryana. The particulars were thus complete and it is equally not in doubt that there was no other person than the complainant, whose name was Arjun Lal and the Account No. was 11866 at the said branch. Mr. K. Seshadri, the Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bombay had fairly conceded in his cross-examination that they received the amount with the direction of a remittance on the 25th of May, 1991 and it was credited to that account on that very day. He further conceded in his cross-examination that the. State Bank of India maintains a detailed directory of its branches and also there is a code number for each branch of the State Bank of India. The said directory was produced at the argument stage by the bank and it ultimately had to be conceded that the Mahendergarh Branch of the State Bank of India in Haryana did find explicit and precise mention of the same at its serial number. It inevitably follows that there was not the least vagueness with regard to both the branch where the amount was to be transmitted nor the name of the person who was the beneficiary, as also his account number in the said bank. The Bombay Branch of the S.B.I. thus was patently and grossly remiss and deficient in their services in not transmitting the amount as instructed even when they were well aware of the urgency of the same in view of the telegraphic nature of the remittance.

WHAT then calls for notice is the fact that assuming at the highest that the said amount was re-credited to the account of M/s. ANZ Grind lays Bank at the Bombay Branch of the S.B.I., the virtually admitted position is that no advice or information was ever sent to them that this had been done because of the telegraphic transfer having not been delivered over to the addressee. Despite being pin-pointed, Mr. Gandhi could bring no document or any testimony to our notice which in any way indicated that M/s. Grind lays Bank was ever informed about this matter. Negligence is thus writ large because it was incumbent upon the State Bank of India to make further enquiry if at all they found any incompleteness in the details of the addressee or the recipient of the telegraphic transfer. It would appear that not a finger was raised till ultimately the complainant raised protestations and issued legal notices to the effect. Lastly in this context what would perhaps clinch the issue is the fact that ultimately the State Bank of India did forward the said amount to the complainant on the 30th of November, 1991. It is common ground that no fresh particulars or address was either required or furnished. It was only on the basis of the original and earlier instructions that the remittance was then duly made to the Account No. 11866 at the Mahendergarh Branch in favour of the complainant. If the self-same particulars were adequate in making the telegraphic transfer on the 30th of November, 1991, it follows that they were equally specific and adequate for doing so on and around the 25th of May, 1991 when the same was admittedly received and credited with the State Bank of India at its Bombay Branch.

It seems unnecessary to further over-elaborate the point because it is manifest that the State Bank of India by patent negligence withheld a telegraphic remittance of Rs. 1,50,000/- from 25th of May onwards till the 30th of November, 1991 when it was ultimately credited to the complainant''s account. A patent deficiency in the bank''s service is thus established beyond cavil against the State Bank of India alone.

ADVERTING now to the relief, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,22,375/- along with interest as compensation. This is primarily sought to be rested on the ground that he had to borrow large amounts from his co-villagers at an exorbitant rate of interest ranging 40% or more. However, much reliance on such oral testimony cannot obviously be placed. Even otherwise, the settled rule of law is that damages or withholding money is normally the interest, therefore, either at the market or at a somewhat penal rate, unless some special damage has already been pointed out to the opposite party. Herein, no such special damage was or could be brought to the notice of the defaulter bank and on the complainant''s own showing the amount was only a wedding gift sent by a prosperous relation on the occasion of his sister''s wedding. The appropriate and basic compensation, therefore, would be the grant of interest @ 18% on the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for a period of six months for which it was wrongfully withheld from the complainant. This works out to a figure of Rs. 13,500/-. The complainant''s stand that he was mentally harassed and put to tension for lack of funds at the stage of his sister''s marriage under the social compulsions in our country is also not devoid of merit. A compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on this score has thus to be modestly allowed to him as well. The complainant is equally entitled to his costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only owing to the somewhat protracted nature of the proceedings. This complaint is consequently allowed and it is directed that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 the S.B.I. shall tender the aforesaid amounts of Rs. 23,500/- along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization within one month from the date of this order, failing which compliance would be enforced under Section 27 of the Act. Complaint allowed with costs.