ALEX J.REBELLO vs Canara Bank

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 5.2.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 468/1990 on its file.

IT arises in this way : - The appellant''s son, Ajit Rebello was studying in Rural Engineering College at Bhalki in Bidar District and he had a S.B. Account No. 6779 in the Canara Bank Branch at Bhalki during 1988. The appellant sent a mail transfer on 5.8.1988 for Rs. 400/- paying the bank charges of Rs. 2/- at Canara Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore, for being sent to and credited to the S.B. Account of his son without mentioning the account number. This amount was not credited to the account of his son within the reasonable time. On enquiry the appellant was informed that the MT for Rs. 400/- was returned on the ground that S.B. Account number was not mentioned in the remittance. According to the appellant he had sent the said amount to his son for his expenses and payment of examination fee of Rs. 100/-. As his son did not receive the said amount, he could not pay the examination fee in time and he had to pay Rs. 35/- as fine. According to the appellant the MT should not have been returned and the Bank could have found the account number of his son on going through the accounts in their branch and ought to have credited the amount to his son''s account. According to the appellant he had sent money to his son by MT from Cunningham Road Branch and Devarajeevanahalli Branch and the Bank had collected postage of Rs. 2/- on each MT wrongly and he had to spend Rs. 10.50 for correspondence for getting that amount back from the Bank. Hence he filed the complaint claiming damages on those two accounts. The complaint was resisted by the respondent by contending inter alia that as the account number was not mentioned, the Bank was justified in returning the MT; that the amount was credited to the S.B. Account of the complainant''s son on 29.8.1988 and if he had been deligent, he would have collected the amount on that day and paid the fees without fine on that day itself and that the Bank was justified in collecting the postal charges also. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

Mr. M.N.N., learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice the instructions regarding mail transfer contained in the manual of instructions of the respondent Bank. In the introductory portion itself, it has been stated that mail transfer is a facility for remitting funds through a branch of the Bank to the credit of the beneficiary'' s account with another branch. This shows that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to have mentioned the account number to facilitate the branch to credit the amount to his son''s account. It may be that if the bank officials at Bhalki Branch, had taken the trouble of scrutinising all the accounts in their branch they could have been able to find out the account number of the complainant''s son. The complainant would have done well to mention the account number in the remittance voucher. Instruction No. 2.6 in the manual of instructions also requires that in respect of each MT, individual MT advice should be prepared in GF 1389 with full particulars, such as the date, MT number, name of the beneficiary and his account number, amount, the name of the remitter, etc. Mr. Rebello states that this has to be done by the Bank. The Bank could have done it, if he had supplied the account number in the remittance voucher. Inspite of being stated to give the account number, the appellant has failed to furnish it to the Bank. Hence, it is on account of his own fault that there has been some delay in crediting to the account of his son. The amount was credited to the account of his son on 29.8.1988 as can be seen from the copy of the statement of accounts furnished by the respondent. 29.8.1988 was the last date for the payment of the fees of the appellant''s son without fine. So, the appellant''s son could have collected the amount on 29.8.1988 and paid the fees without fine. Hence, the District Forum was justified in rejecting the claim for damages on account of the delay in crediting the amount to the account of the appellant''s son.

MR. MNN, produced before us the booklet containing the circulars of the respondent Bank. It is stated in it that in respect of remittance by MT, postal tariff has to be collected separately. MR. Nayak states that the said circular was applicable to the transactions of the appellant. Merely because the Bank has refunded the postal charges on the request of the appellant, it cannot be said that the said amount had been wrongly collected. It might as well have been refunded wrongly. Under the circumstances, the District Forum was justified in rejecting the claim for damages of the appellant in respect of the postal amount collected from him. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.