R.BALRAJ vs MANAGER, GRINDLAYS BANK

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Coasumer Protection Act.

THE brief facts of the case are these : THE complainant who is an unemployed youth intended to start along with some of his friends a real-estate business and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards capital within April''91. He then approached his brother Mr. R. Gowthama Budhar, Assistant Engineer, Tata Projects Ltd., Tashkent, U.S.S.R. and his friend Mr. Ganesh who is also employed in Tashkent, for money. THEy are having N.R.E. accounts in the Grindlays Bank, Bombay represented by opposite parties 1 and 2. THE complainant''s brother sent two messages to the Manager, Grindlays Bank, Bombay, the first opposite party herein to transfer Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- by telegraphic transfer to the complainant''s account with the State Bank of India, Kaveripattinam, Dharmapuri District. His friend Mr. Ganesh also sent a message to the first opposite party to transfer Rs. 8,000/- by telegraphic transfer to the complainant''s account in the State Bank of India, Kaveripattinam. THE amounts were not received by the complainant. He contacted his brother and his friend at Tashkent, who in turn contacted the Grindlays Bank, Bombay and they were informed that as the Grindlays Bank was not having any branch at Kaveripattinam, they have transferred the amount through the State Bank of India, Bombay. It transpires that the State Bank of India, Bombay instead of transferring the amounts to the complainant''s account at Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India has sent the amounts to the Dharmapuri District Branch and consequently the complainant could not get the money. This was found out only late and the complainant was able to collect the amount only on 1.7.91 through the Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India. He has therefore filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 1 lakh for loss of partnership, Rs. 50,000/- for illtreatment and criticism in the bank, Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 10,000/- for loss, of reputation and Rs. 15,000/- for expenses. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed a joint counter. It is admitted that they received intimations from the complainant''s brother and his friend for transfer of three amounts to the complainant''s account at Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India. Their case is that they sent the copies of the T.T. Messages to the third opposite party, State Bank of India, Bombay with the full address of the complainant''s account in the Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India. There was no delay or deficiency of service or negligence on their part. According to the opposite parties 1 and 2, it is the State Bank of India which has wrongly sent the amount to the Dharmapuri District Branch of the State Bank of India instead of to the Kaveripattinam Branch.

The third opposite party has sent a cryptic reply by post enclosing the copies of the request received from the Grindlays Bank to show that the amount was asked to be sent to the credit of the complainant account No.204 with Dharmapuri District Branch. Accordingly it sent the amount to that branch and there was no deficiency of service or negligence on its part.

EXHIBITS A1 to A17 and B1 to B31 are marked. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in. The complainant''s brother Mr. Gowthama Budhar has been working as Assistant Engineer in Tashkent of the former U.S.S.R. The complainant''s friend Mr. Ganesh is also working there. Both of them are Non-resident Indians having separate N.R.E. accounts in the Grindlays Bank, Bombay represented by opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant in order to furnish a capital of Rs. 30,000/- for joining with some of his friends and starting a real estate business, applied for funds to his brother and his friend in Tashkent. Exhibit B1 is the message dated 4.4.91 sent by the complainant''s brother to the first opposite party for ''transferring by telegraphic transfer a sum of Rs. 14,000/- from his account, to the account, of the complainant, Mr. R. Balraj, T.A. 204, State Bank of India, Kaveripattinam Post, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. Exhibit B2 is the similar message dated 4.4.91 sent by his friend Mr. Ganesh to the first opposite party to transfer a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from his account to the account of the complainant, T.A. 204, State Bank of India, Kaveripattinam Post. Exhibit B3 is another message dated 14.4.91 sent by the complainant''s brother to the first Opposite Party to transfer a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from his account to the account of the Complainant T.A. 204, State Bank of India, Kaveripattinam Post, Dharmapuri District. As the Grindlays Bank did not have any branch at Kaveripattinam, it has sought to transfer the amounts through the State Bank of India, Bombay which was having a branch at Kaveripattinam. But unfortunately the third opposite party, State Bank of India, Bombay instead of sending the amounts by telegraphic transfer to the Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India, has sent the amounts to the Dharmapuri District Branch. The complainant therefore could not get the amounts in time. He was able to realise the amounts only on 1.7.91 through the Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India. We have now to find who is responsible for this negligence and deficiency of service.

ACCORDING to the opposite parties 1 and 2, they sent the correct message to the State Bank of India,. Bombay for telegraphic transfer and it is the State Bank of India, Bombay which has committed the mistake. Opposite parties 1 and 2 relied upon Exhibits B5, B6 and B8 copies of the telegraphic transfer messages received by the State Bank of India to show that they have given the correct account number of the complainant and the branch at Kaveripattinam. A perusal of Exhibits B5, B6 and B8 would also clearly show that the transferee is A.R. Balraju, Account No. T.A. 204, S.B.I. Kaveripattinam Post, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. But the third opposite party would contend that Exhibits B26 and B27 Advices received from the first opposite party showed that the amount to be credited to the account of Balraju T.A. 204, Dharmapuri District Branch. On account of these advices, the amount was sent to the Dharmapuri District branch. No doubt the first opposite party has sent the correct branch name as it is seen from Exhibits B5, B6 and B8. Exhibit B7, Pay Order would also show that the amount has to be credited to the account of the complainant with the Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India. But at the same time, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed a mistake in sending Exhibits B26 and B27, Advices in which the credit is asked to be given to the complainant''s account No. T.A. 204 with Dharmapuri District Branch. This amounts to clear negligence. Similarly the State Bank of India, Bombay has also committed a mistake in not sending the amount to Kaveripattinam branch which is clearly given in its own T.T. messages, under Exhibits B5, B6 and B8. There has thus been negligence on the part of the third opposite party also. We therefore hold that there has been deficiency of service and negligence on the part of both the opposite parties and they are liable to indemnify the complainant. It is argued on behalf of the third opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer so far as it is concerned. The third opposite party has acted as the agent of the Grindlays Bank and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the third opposite party. It is urged that under Section 192 of the Contract Act where a sub-agent is properly appointed, the principal is, so far as regards third persons, represented by the sub-agent, and is bound by and responsible for his acts, as if he were an agent originally appointed by the principal and hence the third opposite party is not responsible to the complainant. But the Consumer Protection Act creates new rights and liabilities and the matter has to be decided with reference to the provisions of the said Act. Under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer is a person who hires any services for consideration and included a beneficiary of such services when the services are availed of with the approval of the person who actually hires. The complainant''s brother and his friend have hired the services of the Grindlays Bank for transferring the amount standing in their accounts by T.T. to the account of complainant, the Grindlays Bank has in turn engaged the services of the third opposite party for consideration to transfer the amount to the complainant''s account at Kaveripattinam branch and the-beneficiary of these services is the complainant, who has availed of the services with the approval of the actual hirer, namely his brother and his friend. The complainant is therefore a consumer so far as the third opposite party is also concerned. Hence the. third opposite party is also liable for damages. The complainant has claimed as damages a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of Partnership, Rs. 50,000/- for ill-treatment and criticism at the bank, Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of reputation and Rs. 15,000/- for expenditure. The complainant cannot claim any damage for loss of partnership for it is speculative to think of earning any profit out of that Partnership. No claim can also be made for ill-treatment and criticism levelled at him at Kaveripattinam branch of the State Bank of India, which he frequently visited to know about the receipt of the funds. We are also not inclined to grant any compensation for alleged loss of reputation and there is no evidence for expenditure incurred. However, for mental pain and agony we award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

IN the result we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Complaint allowed with costs.