PAWAN KUMAR RANA vs Canara Bank

THIS is complainant''s appeal against the order of dismissal of his Complaint No. 652/1992 dated 23.5.1995 by District Forum, Jaipur-I.

THE appellant is engaged in the business of exporting precious stone to foreign markets. His case before the Forum was that his overseas buyer in Switzerland had remitted DEM 5092 to him through his banker, Swiss Volks Bank, Bern, Switzerland on 18.9.1991 and although the said amount was received by the Canara Bank in its Foreign Deptt. at Mumbai on 20.9.1991, but the aforesaid amount, after conversion into Indian Currency, could be received by appellant''s Bank - Bank of Baroda, Jaipur on 13.12.1991. THE appellants thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and claimed Rs. 30,094.00 on account of compensation for mental agony, interest, rotational profits, loss of difference in foreign exchange and expenses. THE Forum, however, non-suited him on the ground of appellant''s not being a "consumer" of the services of the respondents for consideration and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents having not proved. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record of the Forum.

Insofar as the question of appellant being a "consumer" of the services of the respondents for consideration is concerned we find that undisputedly the appellant was the beneficiary of the services hired by his foreign-buyers from the Swiss Bank for consideration. The Foreign Bank had sent the remittance to the Foreign Department of the respondent Bank at Mumbai and the respondent Bank at New Delhi had charged Rs. 25/- from the appellant while sending the remittance to appellant''s Bank at Jaipur. The respondent Banks have claimed themselves as agent of the Swiss Bank in remitting the amount to appellant''s Bank at Jaipur. Since they had charged Rs. 25/- from the appellant, may be in the name of handling charges, it made consideration for the services rendered by them to the appellant. The appellant was, therefore, a "consumer" of the services of the respondent Bank for consideration. In our opinion the learned Forum has erred in holding otherwise.

COMING now to the merits of appellant''s case we find that it is no doubt true that the Swiss Bank appears to have telex-paid on 18.9.1991 an amount of DEM 5092 to Canara Bank, Mumbai (Ann. 1) and had instructed them to transfer the amount to appellant''s account with Bank of Baroda, International Banking Cell, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur (Ann. 4) but the case of the respondent in respect to delayed payment of the amount to appellant''s Bank at Jaipur is not without basis and is required to be appreciated in the nature of the transaction involved herein. Respondent''s version of the case is that the foreign remittance are first confirmed from the drawer Bank and after confirmation of the amount remitted, payment instructions are transmitted to the Foreign Deptt. of the concerned branches. We note from Annx. 8, which was written by Mumbai Office of the respondent Bank in reply to appellant''s letter dated 12.11.1991, that payment instructions were received from Swiss Bank on 31.10.1991 and on that very date the Mumbai Branch of respondent Bank had instructed their Branch at New Delhi to do the needful. The Delhi Branch had remitted the amount in Swiss Currency to appellant''s Bank, Bank of Baroda, at Jaipur, but the appellant wanted the amount in Indian Currency. Bank of Baroda had then requested the Canara Bank at Delhi to remit the amount in Indian currency. It took some time in finally, crediting the amount in appellant''s account with Bank of Baroda at Jaipur. It is also noted that the respondents were not in possession of the A/c Number of the appellant with Bank of Baroda and when the Account Number was known by them they lost no time in remitting the amount in Indian Currency to the Bank of Baroda at Jaipur.

ON the above facts and taking into account the circumstances attending on the remittance from Swiss Bank to the Foreign Exchange Deptt. of an Indian Bank, which incidentally was not the banker of the appellant, and also considering the fact that the respondent Bank was requested to send the money to appellant''s Bank in Indian Currency and the request so made after the amount had already been received in Swiss Currency, consumed some time, the Forum was justified in taking the view that delay committed in crediting appellant''s account with Bank of Baroda with the amount in question was not deliberate and negligent on the part of transaction some delay was bound to take place. Neither the appellant himself, nor his banker, namely Bank of Baroda, appears to have either apprised the Swiss Bank or the respondent Bank of appellant''s account number in Bank of Baroda, or to have instructed them in advance to remit the amount after getting the Swiss Currency, exchanged in Indian Currency. Under such circumstances it is not proper to hold that the respondents had rendered deficient services to the appellant. In view of the above we find no merits in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly with cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.