N.SAHADEVAN vs Manager, Syndicate Bank

ON 23.4.1990 the complainant remitted Rs. 40,000/- in the Punalur Branch of the Syndicate Bank for mail transfer to the account of one Prabhakaran (his brother-in-law) at the Indira Nagar Branch (Bangalore) of the same Bank. The purpose of the transfer was to enable Prabhakaran take a sale deed for a property at Bangalore for which an agreement had already been entered into and advance paid. According to the complainant, on 7.5.1990 Prabhakaran presented a cheque for Rs. 1,31,000/- at the Indira Nagar Branch but it was not honoured on the plea that no advice had been received from Punalur. ON getting this information the complainant contacted the Manager of the Punalur Branch who told him that he could send the amount only on 26.4.1990. He also gave out some lame excuses. The complainant passed this information to Prabhakaran. Thereupon Prabhakaran made enquiries at the Indira Nagar Branch. The Branch Manager told him that although the advice had been received it had to be returned for authentication as it did not bear the Punalur Branch Manager''s signature. Thereupon the complainant met the Punalur Branch Manager again when the latter confirmed the omission, adding that a signed advice had already been sent to the Indira Nagar Branch on 10.5.1990. As the last date for registration of the sale deed was fast approaching, the complainant borrowed Rs. 42,000/- from a local financier and as he could not catch the train in time he took it in person to Prabhakaran in a taxi car. It was thus possible to execute the sale deed within the stipulated date.

ALL this happened because the complainant depended upon the Syndicate Bank Punalur Branch. For what he had suffered mentally, physically and financially he is entitled to compensation from the authorities of the Punalur Branch of the Bank. He fixes the claim at Rs. 1 lakh. The opposite party has filed its version taking into preliminary objections, apart from pleading to the merits of the case. It contends that the dispute does not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and that even if it does, the dispute is below the jurisdiction of this Commission as the complainant''s claim is only Rs. 1 lakh. On the merits the opposite party has admitted that it was true that the complainant had remitted Rs. 40,000/- at the Punalur Branch as pleaded by him. At that time there was a shortage of staff in the Punalur Branch. On 25.4.1990 there was a strike of the officers in the Bank and this was followed by holidays on 27.4.90, 29.4.90 and 1.5.1990. The result was that the Punalur Branch could despatch the advice regarding the remittance only on 2.5,1990. The advice, although it was received at the Indira Nagar Branch on 5.5.1990, was not at once credited in the transferee''s name as the office noticed some discrepancy in the signature on the credit advice and as the amount was large. He did not want to take any risk without confirmation. So he returned the mail transfer for further advice to the Punalur Branch. On receipt of the advice back on 10.5.1990 it was retransmitted to Bangalore with the necessary confirmation. It was wrong to say that Prabhakarn presented a cheque for Rs. 1,31,000/- on 7.5.1990 at the Indira Nagar Branch and that it was rejected. He only enquired whether he could cash a cheque for Rs. 1,31,000/-. In fact on that day he had drawn a cheque for Rs. 91,000/- and this had been honoured. The Bank had no knowledge that the Rs. 40,000/- was remitted in connection with a property deal. The Bank has also no knowledge of the complainant taking a loan and going to Bangalore in a taxi. In the absence of any evidence the Bank is constrained to deny these averments. Under the terms and conditions by which the amount was received for transfer the Bank has no responsibility for any delay in transit. The Bank has not failed or refused to render any service to the complainant. The Bank is not liable to compensate the complainant and in any event, the claim made by him is arbitrary and exhorbitant. It is also unsupported by any materials.

The complainant has filed a reply meeting some of these allegations and adding that he might be allowed to raise the claim to 1 lakh and one rupee.

NEITHER side has called any oral evidence but both sides have produced a few documents. These were admitted in evidence by consent. Exhibit P1 and P6 for the complainant and Exhibits Rl and R2 for the opposite party. The dispute between the parties falls within a narrow campus. It is now clear on the admission of the opposite party that the complainant remitted Rs. 40,000/- in the Punalur Branch of the Bank on 23.4.1990 for mail transfer to the account of Prabhakaran at the Indira Nagar Branch of the Bank. However the relative advice was sent to the Indira Nagar Branch only on 2nd May and was received at the destination on the 5th. Even then the amount was not credited in the transferee''s account on the 5th as the officer felt some doubts about the authenticity of the signature on the credit advice. The doubt was thereupon referred to the Punalur Branch for clarification. This querry reached Punalur on 10.5.1990 and thereafter a confirmation was sent to Indira Nagar although it is not clear when the confirmation reached there.

ON the materials it is not clear when the advice finally reached Indira Nagar and the amount was actually brought into credit. In any case it was subsequent to 10.5.1990; perhaps the time is not quite crucial for even before that date the sale deed had been executed on 7.5.1990. It is thus beyond doubt that on 7.5.1990 when the document was taken the amount had not reached Indira Nagar. It was quite probably meant for the sale deed even though there is nothing to show that circumstance had been brought to the notice of the Bank. But whether the Bank had that information or not has no decisive consequence, for the term of the agreement of sale was to expire only towards the end of May, several days after the effective advice was received in Indira Nagar. The date of receipt of the advice at Indira Nagar is important only as showing the extent of the delay; it has no bearing on the execution of the sale deed. On the complainant''s part there is no material to prove that he had to raise a loan without waiting for the result of the mail transfer. Ext P3 the agreement of sale was operative till 31.5.1990. Even before that date the advice had reached Indira Nagar and there was no need for the complainant to go in for a loan at the time of the sale. There is no evidence that he took a loan either. The complainant has a further case that as the train from Kerala to Bangalore had already left by the time he raised the loan on 5.5.1990 he hired a taxi car at Pathanapuram and rushed to Bangalore with the money. In support of this story he has produced Exhibits P4 and P5, copies of the tripsheets dated 5.5.1990 and 7.5.1990, relating to a Car. They do not however disclose that it was the complainant who hired the taxi. Even if they do, there is nothing further to prove that he had hurried to Bangalore with the money. If the complainant had over taxed himself he cannot saddle the liability on the Bank. As we observed there was no need to go in for a loan on 5.5.1990; there is no evidence of the loan and there was no urgent need for him to rush to Bangalore on 5.5.1990.

THE delay in the transfer of the amount did not defeat the sale; but there is no doubt the delay must have caused anxiety and worry to the complainant for the idea of a mail transfer itself postulates a sense of urgency. THE Bank should have been more active and alive to the transfer of the amount even if it had no knowledge of the object of the transfer. We cannot help concluding that the Bank was guilty of unexplained delay and gross negligence in sending the advice from Punalur to Indira Nagar. During the working days after the remittance of the money nothing appears to have been done by the bank to attend to the mail transfer. 26th, 28th and 29th were working days even if we exclude the 25th when it is said there was an officers'' strike. THE Bank slept over the remittance and it seems to have woken up in the matter only on the 2nd May. In the absence of very convincing explanation we cannot over look or condone the delay particularly when it is remembered that the transaction concerned a mail transfer. Banks whether big or small constitute an essential and almost indispensible component of modern social and economic set up. THEy render vital service to the community and the community naturally feeds them. THEy must be ever vigilant and solicitious about the interests of their customers departure from such standard can cause inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster. THE Banks should therefore be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above reapproach. THE Bank''s service to the complainant was deficient and in our view utterly blameworthy.

THE preliminary objections have no merit. THE dispute falls squarely within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and Counsel for the opposite party did not argue to the contrary. Although originally the complainant put the claim at Rs. 1 lakh, it was subsequently amended by adding one rupee to the claim, thus putting the matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission. THE complainant has thus claimed 1 lakh and 1 rupee as compensation. Although this claim is not supported by any material or details there cannot be any doubt that the complainant has suffered mental worry and agony over the delay that a fairly large amount of money remitted by him for mail transfer had not reached its destination within a reasonable time. For this the Bank is bound to compensate him and we think that in the circumstances of the case the Bank should pay him Rs. 5,000/- as compensation under this head. Although he has alleged that he had lost physically and financially also mere is no basis to sustain the claim. That head is therefore rejected. The opposite party will pay the complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within 30 days from today. In default the Manager of the Bank in charge of the Punalur Branch will suffer imprisonment for 1 month. We order also the opposite party to pay the complainant his costs which we fix at Rs. 1,000/-. Petition allowed.