1. THIS appeal is by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in O.P. No. 514/95 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. By the impugned order the District Forum ordered the opposite parties/appellants to pay 12% interest on Rs. 50,000/- from 21.2.1987 to 16.6.1994 and also to pay cost Rs.. 500/- within one month from the order. Aggrieved by the said order now the" opposite parties, as indicated, has filed this appeal.
2. THE facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are : Respondent-complainant transferred Rs. 50,000/- by Telegraphic Transfer from Cannanore branch of SBT to Trivandrum branch in favour of the Project Officer, Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Limited. According to the complainant insisted of crediting in favour of the said beneficiary the appellant bank credited the same in the account of Kerala State Handloom Weaver''s Co-operative Society Ltd. It is further the case of the complainant that because of this wrong credit they had taken another loan on 21.2.1987 and had to pay interest at 18% till 16.6.1994. THErefore they sought for an order directing the opposite parties to pay interest 18% and also compensation.
Opposite parties-appellants filed joined version denying the claim. They contended that the claim is barred by limitation and since the transfer of account itself was vague inasmuch as the description of the beneficiary was incomplete and ambiguous, the amount happened to be wrongly credited. The credit had to be in favour of the Project Officer who had an account at State Bank of Travancore, Medical College Branch, since the description was vague, the amount happened to be credited in the account of M/s. Kerala State Handloom Weaver''s Co-operative Society. Therefore they maintained in their version that the bank cannot be put to any liability as the alleged miscredit was occasioned on account of the vagueness in the description of the beneficiary.
Before the District Forum the Finance Manager of the complainant was examined as PW 1 and on the opposite parties side Asst. Manager (Act) of Trivandrum branch was examined as DW 1. The complainant produced Exts. P1 to P20 and on the side of the opposite parties Exts. D1 to D10 were produced. The District Forum after considering materials before it and after hearing both sides passed an order as indicated above.
3. THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim is hopelessly barred as whereas the telegraphic transfer was on 21.2.1987, the claim was preferred only on 20.10.1995. THE learned Counsel pointed out that it was about 7 years and four months after the wrong credit that the complaint was instituted and therefore it is barred by limitation under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It should be noted that the error was discovered admittedly only on 16.6.1994. In such circumstances it is not possible to hold that on 21.2.1987 the cause of action in the matter arose. In the facts and circumstances the cause of action could arise only when the complainant learnt as to the miscredit of the amount in another person''s account. THE discovery of the wrong credit was possible only on audit which took place in the year 1994. THE appellants also as such did not have a case that the complainant had knowledge of the credit of the amount in the name of another person at any date earlier to the audit. In such circumstance it is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant when he argues the cause of action should be deemed to have arisen on 21.2.1987. As per Section 24(A) the limitation is two years from the accrual of the cause of action. As indicated, the cause of action in this case arose only from the date of knowledge of the wrong credit which was in 1994 only.
The next point argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, at any rate since the credit happened to be made in the name of another person on account of the vagueness of the communication from the complainant, the appellant cannot be made liable for the interest as claimed by them. On behalf of the complainant it was submitted that, since the complainant has transactions with the bank for a considerable time, it was easy for them to discover that the T.T. was really to be credited in the account of the Project Officer at Medical College branch. What is to be noted in this connection is, Ext. Dl would reveal that the beneficiary is the Project Officer of the Kerala Handloom Development Project. In the column relating to branch in which the credit is to be made only Trivandrum branch is mentioned. Therefore learned Counsel for the appellant maintained that Ext. Dl would demonstrate, at least there is vagueness in the description of the beneficiary and the complainant is also responsible for the wrong credit. What is to be noted is that Ext. Dl prominently mentions that it has to be credited to the benefit of the Project Officer though the branch is mentioned as Trivandrum branch. Admittedly the Project Officer has account only with the Medical College, branch, Trivandraum. Now the crucial question for adjudication is whether in the given circumstances the bank was right in crediting the amount to the account of Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant respondent, though in the Trivandrum branch there is no account for the Project Officer, there was no reason for the opposite parties to credit it in the account of Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, which is an entirely different person. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in II (1991) CPJ page 545, and also the typed copy of an unreported decision of this Court in Appeal No. 474/92. In the earlier decision in Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore held that since it was on account of the omission of the complainant to mention the S.B. Account numbers of his son in the remittance the amount could not be credited within the reasonable time, the complainant is not entitled to compensation. In the later decision the complainant applied for a telegraphic transfer of Rs. 20,000/- to the account of a person who had an account with State Bank of India, Vijayanagar, Ahmedabad, instead the amount was credited at the Vijaya Nagar branch of State Bank of India, New Delhi. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, this Court held that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. There, the Bank had branches at Ahmedabad and Delhi; the branches were at Vijayanagar at Ahmedabad, and Vijaya Nagar at Delhi. The credit happened to be made in the Delhi branch as the complainant mentioned ''Vijaya Nagar'' in two words. Since the wrong credit was occasioned as a result of the mistake of the complainant himself, it was held that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. It was contended by the learned Counsel, in this case also since the complainant did not mention the Medical College branch, the amount happened to be credited in the Trivandrum branch.
4. HAD it been like that it could have helped the appellant, but there is difference. Whereas the credit had to be made in favour of the Project Officer, who was specifically mentioned in the Telegraphic Transfer, the bank credited the amount in the account of a totally different person the Kerala State Handloom Weaver''s Co-operative Society. That there was no account in favour of Project Officer at Trivandrum branch cannot salvage the situation for the appellant, as in such situation the appellant could have transferred the amount to suspense account instead of crediting the same in the account of a totally different person. Admittedly the account was not held in the suspense account neither was there any attempt on the part of the appellant to get clarification as to the vagueness in the Telegraphic Transfer. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstance they had to credit the amount in the account of a totally different person. In the context, it is worthy to refer to the observation in 1991 CPR 617, N. Sahadevan v. Manager, Syndicate Bank, as to the duty of Banks; it is to the effect that they must be ever vigilant and solicitous about the interest of their customer. But whether big or small constitute an essential and almost indispensable component of modern, social and economic set up. They render vital service to the community and the community naturally feeds them. It need hardly be stated that they are charged with the duty to be careful in dealing with the customers money. In the decision in 1994 (1) CPR page 856 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra observed; Bank acting contrary to instructions of complainant in guilty of deficiency in service.
But one cannot forget that the complainant also is guilty of default in that it did not give the complete description of the beneficiary inasmuch as the Medical College Branch was not specifically mentioned. In the matter of the relative duties and obligations of the customers and the bank, the bank''s duty is on a higher pedestal. The dereliction attributed to the complainant in such circumstances can only have mitigating effect on the quantum of relief to which the complainant is entitled to. The complainant claimed 18% interest. The District Forum adverting to the same has considered this aspect in the impugned judgment. Adverting to the decision which held that the consumer is entitled to get 16% to 18% interest, District Forum with due regard to the above aspect scaled down the percentage of interest and fixed it at 12%. We consider this as a just method in fixing the relief for deficiency in service. The District Forum directed the appellant to pay interest at 12% on Rs. 50,000/- and that too from 21.2.1987 to 16.6.1994 and also cost of Rs. 500/-. We do not see anything to interfere in the order of the District Forum. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed, we accordingly dismiss the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.
