- (1.) THE complainant s case is that the importer from Germany sent a sum of DM 91,587/ - by telex transfer from Commerz Bank, Germany to Central Bank of India, Foreign Business, Calcutta Main Branch, Calcutta. It was received by the third opposite party on 13.11.1996. Since the complainant did not receive any payment from their client or any credit was made to their account with the 4th opposite party, they wrote several letters and ultimately the sum was credited in their account only on 5.12.1996. Thus, there is a delay of 23 days. On account of which the complainant has been put to loss. Further, on account of crediting of the amount on 5.12.1996 on the basis of the exchange rate then prevailing the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 35,176/ -. Hence, the complainant laid the complaint alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation.
(2.) THE opposite parties filed a common version. Their main contention is that there is no deficiency in service and that it is the mistake of the Commerz Bank, Germany in not following the procedure and in sending the money to the wrong Bank.
(3.) THE only point that arises for determination is : Whether there is deficiency in service as alleged? The Point : It is admitted that the remittance was ultimately credited in the complainant s account on 5.12.1996. The amount was sent in Deutch Mark and it is the complainant s case that it was received by the opposite party on 13.11.1996. Therefore, if at all, there is a delay in crediting the amount, it is only a delay of 23 days. The complainant has not produced any document to show that the Commerz Bank sent the amount to the correct bank or with correct particulars. There is nothing to show that they followed any fixed procedure that has to be observed in remittance of amount from abroad. The document under Ex. A7 does not show that as to when the amount was sent to which branch and under what code number. There is a mention about the Central Bank of India, Mugappair Branch. The complainant company do not say that they have got any account in Mugappair Branch or that they have instructed the remittance to be made to Mugappair Branch. The complainant would allege that the Commerz Bank had mentioned the Code No. ISN 61487. But, according to the opposite party, there is no code number followed in India for identifying the concerned Bank and that the 4th opposite party does not have any swift bank identification code and that only English alphabets are used to identify the Banks. The opposite party made inquiries and informed the complainant as admitted by the complainant that the amount was received in Calcutta Branch. Thereupon, they have acted speedily and have instructed the third opposite party to transfer the money to the credit of the complainant s account with 4th opposite party and that has been done without any delay. It can be taken note of that unless essential and basic details are available, the Bank will not be able to act either for the purpose of locating the remittance of the amount or to find out any credit entries had been made relating to a remittance from a foreign bank. Therefore, in this case, we do not have any concrete material to show that the fault lies with the opposite parties. But, on the other hand, the complainant has not produced any material from their Banker to show that the remitting Banker adopted normal practice for remittance in respect of money sent from the foreign Bank. Therefore, in the absence of such materials, the opposite party cannot be held responsible. On the other hand, the delay appears to be because of the mistake committed by the remitter, who has failed to act in accordance with the instruction. There is nothing to show that there was any correspondence between the remitting Bank and the opposite party. On the other hand, Ex. A1 to Ex. A5 produced by the complainant clearly mention that T.T. to Account No. 57 with the Central Bank of India, Chennai Account No. 8533920210 with Berliner Bank AG, Frankfurt. The remitter has committed a mistake in remitting the money into Commerz Bank which has thus resulted in this delay.;