K.N. MEHTA vs S.B.I. OVERSEAS BRANCH

-THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of District Forum, Delhi dated 22.8.91/ 9.9.91 by which complaint of the complainant has been dismissed.

BRIEFLY the facts are that U.S. Dollars 4200 were sent on 7.10.87 by Citi Bank of New York to State Bank of India for being credited to the account of Shri. K. N. Mehta complainant. The amount was credited to his account at New Delhi on 10.11.87. It is alleged by the complainant that as a result of delay, he had to pay interest to Delhi Development Authority amounting to Rs. 3280/- and he suffered loss of Rs. 1000/- due to difference in exchange rate. He also claimed Rs. 835/- for International Calls and other costs incurred by him. Consequently he filed a complaint before the District Forum praying that the opposite party directed to pay Rs. 5115/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. The complaint was contested by the opposite party and they controverted the allegations of the complainant. The learned District Forum held that the State Bank of India, Calcutta cannot be held responsible of delay in crediting the amount against the Foreign remittence for which the message had been received at Calcutta and that was to be credited to the account of the complainant at New Delhi. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order.

The main question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to file the complaint against the State Bank of India. It is not disputed that the money was handed over in New York to Citi Bank for transferring the amount to the complainant at Delhi. The Citi Bank sent the said amount to India through State Bank of India, Calcutta Branch. Thus the State Bank of India was an agent of the Citi Bank.

SECTION 192 of the Contract Act says that the agent is responsible to the principal for the acts of his sub-agent and that the sub-agent is responsible for his acts to the agent and not to the principal except in the cases of fraud or wilful wrong. It has not been pleaded that there was fraud or wilful wrong on the part of the respondent. In view of the aforesaid section, the complainant may have cause of action against Citi Bank but not against the State Bank of India, which is an agent of the City Bank. Therefore, the complainant had no right to file the complaint against the opposite party. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.