JUDGMENT - RANE M.S., President.:---We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants and on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book. 2. The appellants herein are the org. O.Ps. and respondent is the org. complainant. (For brevitys sake appellants are hereinafter referred to as Bank and respondent as complainant). 3. The appellant-bank has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28th July, 2003 passed by Additional District Forum, Pune holding it deficient in the matter of processing remittance of the moneys which the complainants daughter has done from Singapore through D.B.S. Bank for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- with a specific advice to credit the same into the complainants account with the appellant-Bank, East Street Branch, Pune. The remittance by the D.B.S. Bank, Singapore was effected on 26th April, 2002 and the complainants account was credited on 27th May, 2002 that is to say exactly after a month of the date of remittance. 4. The remittance was done as per case of the complainant by her daughter for the purpose of meeting the wedding expenses of the elder daughter of the complainant, which was fixed on 15th May, 2002. 5. As there was delay of crediting the said amount into the account of the complainant by the appellant-Bank that the complainant could not get the said amount for the purpose for which the same was meant for viz. for meeting wedding expenses of her daughter, which was scheduled to take place on 15th May, 2002. Hence, complainant was filed the complaint before District Forum which has held the Bank being deficient because of inordinate delay of about a month to credit into her account with appellant-Bank and so holding has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony, etc. 6. As stated these findings are challenged by and on behalf of the O.P. Bank. 7. Across the learned Advocate for the appellant-Bank submitted that the complaint as filed is not maintainable since remittance has been done by the daughter of the complainant who is not the consumer of the Bank. However, this argument requires to be rejected outright since benefits under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is also made available to the beneficaries like the complainant herein. 8. However, this argument requires to be rejected outright since benefits under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is also made available to the beneficaries like the complainant herein. 8. The second contention raised was that appellant-Bank which is located at Pune cannot be held deficient or responsible for the delay. It was asserted that the remittance was received by the Mumbai office of the Bank and that there was a delay on the part of the Mumbai office to transmit the intimation of the receipt of remittance to its Pune Branch. It is therefore submitted that the complainant should have made its Mumbai office as Opposite Party in the complaint. 9. In this connection, if one reads the cause title of the complaint, impugned order and the appeal Memo herein, the Mumbai office of the Bank is made party along with its Pune Branch. 10. Apart therefrom, the point raised is no more res integra in view of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India)1, reported in 2000(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)38 : 1986-2002 Consumer 6005 (N.S.) Vol. (IV). Dealing with the point, the Apex Court, referring to the relevant provisions of the Law in particular Reserve Bank of India Act, and Banking Regulations Act, and surveying numerious judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court, Privy Council, High Courts of this country as also decision of English Courts has held in para 20 that the obligation of a Bank to pay the cheques of a customer rests primarily on the branch at which he keeps his account, and that customer must make a demand for payment at the branch where his account is kept before he has cause of action against the Bank. These findings are based on the fact in the case of a Bank, like the appellant herein, the same operates in the course of its banking business, through its branches. It is undisputed position that eventually the remittance amount was to be credited and released to the complainant through Pune branch where she has her account. 11. The fact that there was a delay in crediting the amount into the account of the complainant is not a disputed fact. The appellant O.P. itself paid the interest @ 6% p.a. for the period of delay in payment. 11. The fact that there was a delay in crediting the amount into the account of the complainant is not a disputed fact. The appellant O.P. itself paid the interest @ 6% p.a. for the period of delay in payment. In our view, this is an admission on the part of the appellant-Bank that there was a deficiency on its part and it has proceeded to compensate the complainant by payment of interest. 12. It is to be stated that the remittance was made by the daughter of the complainant for the purpose of wedding of her sister, that is elder daughter of the complainant, which was admittedly scheduled to be held on 15th May 2002 and a copy of Wedding Invitation Card to that effect which forms part of annexure of the appeal paper book at page 32 bears out the same and was to the knowledge of the Bank, as record shows, complainant was making frantic effort to inquire with the Bank for the payment of money which she very badly needed then. As is the case, complainant received the credit of the amount only on 27th May, 2002 i.e. after the marriage. In this respect, the predicament that the complainant had to suffer has been stated by her in the complaint and we only reproduce the relevant part of it- "The complainant submits that her eldest daughters wedding was fixed on 15th May, 2002 at Mysore. The complainant submits that in view of the upcoming marriage and to meet the marriage expenditure, the complainants second daughter Sumita Habbu had sent her an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- through telegraphic transfer, converted into Indian rupees at extra cost from the D.B.S. Bank, Singapore holding Account No. 171-29406-1 to be credited in the complainants Savings Bank Account bearing No. 01190022628, State Bank of India, East Street Branch on 26-4-2002. The complainant submits that the telegraphic transfer of the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was received by the S.B.I. Bank, East Street Branch, Pune on 30-4-2002, but inspite of many inquires and follow ups done by the complainant with the East Street Branch of the State Bank of India, Pune, the said bank confirmed that there is no such credit to the complainants Savings Bank Account bearing No. 01190022628. The complainant submits that a telephonic confirmation of the same was made by the said bank. The complainant submits that a telephonic confirmation of the same was made by the said bank. The complainant submits that she was mentally upset and worried due to her daughters marriage and was required to make many I.S.D. calls to Singapore to follow up with the D.B.S. Bank and also had to place a Search Report which caused the complainant great expense and mental agony." 13. This would show the gravity of the matter. 14. In the matter herein, District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and the appellant-Bank has taken exception to that part of the Award. 15. Since, however, deficiency against the Bank stands amply borne out as has recorded by the District Forum that there being inordinate delay on the part of Bank in crediting the amount into the account of the complainant particularly when the complainant needed the money very badly at that juncture for the purpose of wedding expenses of her daughter. The reproduced portion of the complaint reveals the mental agony that complainant had to undergo for no fault of her. 16. In this respect, we wish to make reference to section 14 sub-section (1) sub-clause (d) which for convenient reference we reproduce- "Section 14(1)- If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the Df is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to (do) one or more of the following things, namely:- (a) To remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) To replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) To return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) To pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. (Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit:)" 17. By reading sub-clause (d) it would mean that compensation to be awarded in the consumer dispute like one in hand, is on two grounds. (Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit:)" 17. By reading sub-clause (d) it would mean that compensation to be awarded in the consumer dispute like one in hand, is on two grounds. Firstly, for the actual loss suffered by the consumer-complainant in terms of money or otherwise and secondly, which is most unique provisions made in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that it takes care to award compensation for injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite Party. 18. As the facts reveal that moneys were transmitted by telegraphic transfer from Singapore and record shows that Mumbai office of the appellant-bank has received it soon after the remittance that is on 30th April, 2002. It is something strange that it took the Mumbai office of the appellant-Bank, 27 days for communicating about receipt of the telegraphic transfer of such a huge amount for such a long time. Across the learned Advocate in nebulous manner tried to justify that there was some technical problems of communication. We do not wish to elaborate such a submission, which would not at all stand to the reasons by any recokning. Particularly so when the communication system is so advanced in the present context. Further there is nothing on record to appear the same even reasonably probable. 19. For all these reasons, we find that District Forum has considered the matter in proper perceptive and awarded compensation for mental agony, which the complainant had suffered. 20. We may have certain reservations about the quantum of compensation that is awarded but one has to take it as a symbolic vindication of the mental agony suffered by the complainant. 21. For all these reasons, we do not find any merits in this appeal and proceed to dismiss the same. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies to be furnished to the parties. Appeal dismissed. -----