MUMTAZ T.KHAMBATI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BRANCH MANAGER, KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
MAMATA LAKSHMANNA,MEMBER -
(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful complainants in O.P. No. 1132/1994 on the file of District
Forum -II, Hyderabad.
(2.) THE case of the complainants is that they had an understanding with the opposite parties that foreign remittance made in London on to
transfer his account in India will be done at the best possible rate in
Indian rupees for that particular day and the proceeds would be converted
into certificates of deposit for 91 days carrying the best possible rate
of interest applicable
(3.) IN pursuance of the above understanding the donors of the complainants deposited an amount of £ 3,08,675.75 on 15.10.1991 at 9.00
a.m. (GMT) at London. The opposite parties bankers informed their
international Division Branch at Madras on the same day by telex, the
fact of deposit of money in the complainants account and this fact was
also informed to opposite party No. 1 by telephone at Secunderabad to
deposit Rs. 1,35,80,101.00 into 8 accounts of 8 complainants. The rate
adopted by the Madras International Division Branch was Rs.100/ -
equivalent to £ 2.2730. The opposite parties issued 5 certificates of
deposits by clubbing the two accounts of two complainants with the other
two accounts mentioning the rate of interest at 15.84%. Receipts were
delivered on 30.10.1991 with an endorsement œ Interest to run from 15
October, 1991 . The grievance of the complainants is that the opposite
parties credited the lesser amount applying the rate prevalent on
16.10.1991 whereas the prevailing rate of exchange for Pound ( £) in Hyderabad on 15.10.1991 was Rs. 100/ - equivalent to £ 2.2700. The
complainants, therefore, represented to opposite party No. 2, Chairman of
the Bank, pointing out the deficiency in service in not crediting the
correct amount by adopting the interest rate applicable on 15.10.1991.
After correspondence for almost two years, opposite party No. 2 rejected
the claim for reimbursement of Rs. 21,613/ -. The complainants, therefore,
gave a final notice to opposite parties and filed the complaint before
the District Forum.
Opposite parties filed their counter and also affidavit denying the allegations and alleged that the complainants were not ˜consumers
as per the Act, that the complaint was time barred as the cause of action
took place on 15.10.1991 and the complaint was filed in 1994 and that the
deposit is made in Pounds in London and was immediately credited to the
complainants accounts and the interest rate prevalent on that day was
given. Hence there is no deficiency in service.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.