`JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:--In this complaint, the allegations are made by the complainant as regards the deficiencies in the service of Bank of India. The complainant alleged that through his A.B.N. Bank he had instructed on 9-11-1978 to the Branch Office of Bank of India at Bombay to remit by telegraphic transfer, a sum of Rs. 79,665.07 payable to the complainant as beneficiary at the Madras Branch of Bank of India. The complainant had paid Rs. 101 towards service charges of Bank of India for telegraphic transfer of the sum. The complainant alleged that those specific instructions were given to the Bank of India through Bombay Office that the amount remitted by telegraphic transfer was to be held by Madras Branch on account of complainant as beneficiary and the amount was payable to the complainant only. The complainant further alleged that in breach of the aforesaid instructions, the Madras Branch of Bank of India wrongly and illegally credited the said amount to the current account of M/s. Gemini International Circus of India. It is stated further that the complainant is merely a partner in the said circus, and he did not instruct the Branch Office of Bank of India, Bombay to remit the aforesaid amount to the account of M/s. Gemini Circus of India. The complainant further alleged that he had requested Bank of India through the opposite parties directly as well as through A.B.N. Bank to pay him his earlier remittances mentioned above. However, according to complainant, the opposite parties totally neglected the complainants repeated request and caused him substantial financial loss which amounts to deficiency in the service of Bank of India. The complainant therefore, prayed this Commission to refund him the amount of Rs. 79,665.07 with 16% interest and also claimed a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. 2. A notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act dated 5-10-1993 was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties were represented by M/s. Dhruva Company, Advocates. A Vakalatnama signed by Bank of India authorising M/s. M. Dhruva Company is placed on record. On 9-12-199 opposite parties were represented by Shri K.D. Shukla, advocate. However, we find that the opposite parties never submitted their written version in their defence. The only defence which is spelt out from a letter dated 27-7-1981 sent by Bank of India, Bombay Office addressed to Mr. On 9-12-199 opposite parties were represented by Shri K.D. Shukla, advocate. However, we find that the opposite parties never submitted their written version in their defence. The only defence which is spelt out from a letter dated 27-7-1981 sent by Bank of India, Bombay Office addressed to Mr. R.R. Arora, the learned Advocate for complainant intimating that the amount of Rs. 79665.07 being the amount represented by the T.T., can not be paid unless the injunction granted by the Court is vacated. 3. There is also on record a zeroxed copy of the order passed by the Civil Court at Madras in O.S. No. 2741/81 filed by T.P. Narayanan and others against Harisaran and Indian Bank. The order in that suit dated 15th day of March, 1991 shows that the suit was dismissed. In effect the injunction granted by the Civil Court automatically stood vacated. Thus, there was no legal obstacle for the Bank of India to release the payment to the complainant as the money was held on his account. We also find that there were clear instructions from the complainant to the Branch of Bank of India at Bombay that the remittances were to be held on account of complainant as beneficiary. No instructions were given to the Bank of India to credit the said amount to the account M/s. Gemini International Circus of India. Under these circumstances, we find that the Bank of India acted contrary to the instructions of the consumer which has put the complainant into loss of amount of interest for a considerable period. In our view, therefore, this is a case of obvious deficiencies in the service of Bank of India which is the direct result of negligence in the service, putting the complainant into huge financial loss. We therefore, find that the complainant has proved his allegations on the basis of documentary evidence and therefore the complaint is required to be allowed. We therefore, pass the following order. Order 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party, Bank of India, through Zonal Manager, Bombay, 70/80 M.G. Road, shall refund to complainant Rs. 79,665.07 ps. with 16% interest per annum from the date of payment till realisation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1,000/- as cost of this complaint. However, the other claims of compensation made by the complainant stands dismissed. Complaint allowed. *****