MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE Vs. K PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first opposite party in O. P. No.545/1997 is the appellant. The complainant/first respondent's case before the District Forum was that he wanted to start a Coir Business and his brother who was employed in Bombay informed him that he would help him by sending Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly his brother sent Rs.10,000/- by telegraphic transfer from 3rd respondent at Vashi Branch, New Bombay on 7.5.1997 to the State Bank of Travancore, Chavara South Branch. But even on his repeated enquiry with State Bank of Travancore, Chavara South Branch, he was informed that no such telegraphic transfer reached that branch. The telegraphic transfer had reached the Chavara Branch of State Bank of Travancore. Since afterwards this amount was credited in the Savings Bank Account of the 2nd respondent/ complainant only on 2.8.1997, the complainant alleged that there is deficiency of service and that on account of said deficiency he could not start a coir industry and thereby he sustained loss. Therefore he sought for a direction for payment the aforesaid Rs.10,000/- with 18% interest and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The first opposite party in their version maintained that they received the intimation from the 3rd respondent only on 10.7.1997 and they credited the said Rs.10,000/-in the Savings Bank Account of the complainant on 2.8.1997. They maintained that there is no deficiency of service on their part. The 2nd opposite party supported the 1st opposite party, the 3rd opposite party remained ex-parte before the District Forum. The complainant was examined as PW 1 and he produced Exts. Al to A4. RW1, the Manager of the 1st opposite party/ appellant was examined as RW 1 and they produced Exts. Rl to R9. On a consideration of the said material, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service. The District Forum directed the first opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- with 18% interest from 12.5.1997 and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- within one month of the order. It is the said order that is under challenge.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain, the said direction is not sustainable under law as according to him the said Rs.10,000/- has already been credited in the account of the complainant. Therefore, the direction to pay the said Rs.10,000/- again in no way can be supported. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that, RW 1 has sworn to the effect that on 2.8.1997 Rs.10,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant and the same is also evidenced by Ext. R8. The appellant also does not have a grievance that the amount is not credited in his account. Therefore, that part of the direction in the impugned order which states that the 1st opposite party has to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- cannot survive. We vacate the said direction. Now the only question that raised for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the said Rs.10,000/-, if so, for which period and also whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation which is awarded by the District Forum. As regards the first question it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that, they received the intimation of the telegraphic transfer only on 10.7.1997 and they credited the same on 2.8.1997 in the account of the complainant. The telegraphic transfer was sent from the 3rd opposite party's office on 7.5.1997, but it was directed to the Chavara Branch, whereas there are two branches, Chavara South Branch and Chavara Branch. The complainant had account only in the Chavara South Branch, which is the 1st opposite party/appellant here. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the 3rd opposite party, who is the 3rd respondent that the very telegraphic transfer itself was only to SBT Branch of Chavara but it is brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Ext. Al, the photocopy of which was placed before us, in application for telegraphic transfer of Rs.10,000/- it is stated that the telegraphic transfer is to SBT Chavara Thekkum Bhagam Branch that is Chavara South Branch. Therefore, the endeavour of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent to maintain that the mistake emanated from person who sought to transfer the amount cannot be accepted. Really the mistake could have been committed only by the 3rd respondent. The telegram from the 3rd respondent mentions the destination only as Chavara. Therefore, the mistake was committed by the 3rd respondent, it required subsequent correspondence by the 2nd respondent with the 3rd respondent, as well as the appellant to locate as to in whose account the amount has to be credited and that was cleared only by 10.7.1997 and accordingly the said 10,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant. Thus, the liability for not crediting the amount in time in the account of the complainant till 10.7.1997 is with the 3rd respondent. Therefore the 3rd respondent would be liable for the eligible interest from 7.5.1997 to 10.7.1997 on the said 10,000/- and thereafter from 11.7.1997 to 2.8.1997 the appellant/the first respondent shall be liable.

(3.) It was urged by the learned Counsel that since the complainant admittedly was holding only a Savings Bank Account, he is not liable to pay interest at a rate higher than the same. The aforesaid liability to pay interest for the said 10,000/- is reduced from 18% fixed by the District Forum, to interest on saving account as on 7.5.1997.