MUMTAZ T.KHAMBATI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-3-5
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 20,2003

Mumtaz T.Khambati Appellant
VERSUS
BRANCH MANAGER, KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.