Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/38/2014

Manda Jaya Ramaiah,Son of late china Penchala reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The chief manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M.D.Rahimkhan

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       :  27-05-2014

Date of disposal  :  17-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Tuesday, this the 17th day of  OCTOBER, 2017.

 

            Quorum: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President

                           Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member 

                          

C.C.No.38/2014        

 

Manda Jaya Ramaiah,

S/o.Late China Penchala Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 53 years,

Residing at D.No.5/14,

Vinayakanagar – Pathuru,

Vinjamuru MAndal,

Nellore District.                                                                        …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

ADB Branch,

Vinjamur,

Nellore District.

 

 

2. I.C.I.C.I. Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Noida Branch,

Sector – 61,

Delhi.                                                                                … Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 12-10-2017 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri Md.Rahimkhan, Advocate for the complainant and                           Sri P.Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and the 2^nd opposite party remained absent  and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (By Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President)

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from 30-1-2014 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/-  towards costs and grant such other relief and submits to allow the complaint.

 

 

 

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

        The complainant submits that the complainant is the account holder bearing S.B.Account No.11368001006 of opposite party No.1 branch.  While so, the complainant on 30-01-2014 approached opposite party No.1 and requested to transfer an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to his son-in-law i.e., Sri Mandan Guddati who is having account with opposite party No.2 bearing account No.025301505838, from the account of the complainant.   The opposite party No.1 has received challan for Rs.1,50,015/- (towards transfer amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.15/- towards service charges) and stated that the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred to the account of Madan Guddati bearing No.025301505838.  The complainant  believing his words, after 5 minutes  telephoned to the said Madan Guddati and came  to know that the said amount was not credited to the account of the said Madan Guddati bearing No.025301505838.  So, immediately at about 11.00 a.m. the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1 and requested to transfer the said amount to the said Madan Guddati account since the said amount is very much essential to meet his urgent needs.  But, to the utter surprise of the complainant, opposite party No.1 stated negligently that the said amount was transferred to another person’s account bearing No.025301505836 instead of 025301505838 and informed the complainant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               that they will hold the said account for Rs.1,50,000/- which  was erroneously credited and further promised to the complainant that they will transfer the said amount to the account of 025301505838 of Madan Guddati as required by the complainant within ten minutes.  But till then the complainant has been approaching opposite party No.1 till today, and the opposite parties have been postponing transferring the said amount either to the account of the complainant or to the account of the said Madan Guddeti.  Vexed with their delaying tactics and negligent attitude, the complainant demanded opposite party No.1 either to refund the said amount to him or to transfer the same to the account of the said Madan Guddeti, immediately.  But, the opposite party No.1 simply gave a Photostat copy of correspondence made by opposite party No.1 with Sri N.Lakshmi Narayana ICICI Bank, CLOG NEFT, Hyderabad, without refunding the said amount to the complainant.

 

3.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties are the custodians of the amounts of their customers like the complainant and they have to safeguard the amounts of their customers.  It is the legal and bound duty of the opposite parties  to transfer the said amount immediately, when they have collected huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and service charges for transferring the same as required by the complainant, to the wanting account i.e., to the account of Madan Guddeti.  But, opposite party No.1 has negligently transferred the said amount to some others account by entering wrong account number and through the complainant immediately within ten minutes, informed the same to opposite party No.1 and 2, but both the opposite parties did not choose to refund the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants account though more than four months have elapsed and both the opposite parties have failed to take sufficient steps to refund the said amount to the complainant.  So, vexed with their attitude, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 02-05-2014 to opposite parties demanding them to refund the amount with interest and damages.  Having receive the same, the opposite parties kept quite without refunding the same and thus committed gross negligence and deficiency in service.

 

4.  It is respectfully submit that both the opposite parties are bound to safe guard the public money and transfer the amounts as required by their customers.  But opposite party No.1 negligently transferred the said amount to others account no way connected to the complainant by entering wrong account number.  As per rules, when there is mis-match of account number with name of the account holder, it is the duty of the opposite parties, to stop the transfer and to refund the amount.  But both the opposite parties have failed to do so for the reasons better know to both of them.  This attitude of opposite parties clearly goes to show their sheer negligence and deficiency in service in doing their services.  Due to that the complainant and his son-in-law suffered  lot of mental agony, distress and also financial loss.     Hence, both the opposite parties are not only liable to refund the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of transfer i.e., 30-1-2014 till the date of realization besides paying compensation to the complainant, hence, the complaint submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

5.  The opposite party No.1 filed counter/written version with the following averments that:-

        

       The opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant is the account holder of this opposite party No.1.  The allegation mentioned in paras 2 to 4 of complaint are incorrect and created for the sake of filing of a complaint.  It is not correct to state that complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested to transfer an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to his son-in-law account who is having account with opposite party No.2.  This opposite party neither received the voucher of Rs.1,50,015/- nor stated that the amount was transformed to the account of Madan Guddati.  The other allegation made in the complaint against opposite party No.1 are concocted stories and that believing the said words of opposite party No.1 and the complainant came to know the said amount was not credit in the account of Madan Guddati and that the complainant informed the same to this opposite party No.1 at about 11-00 A.M., on the even date.

      

     The opposite party No.1 further submitted that as per the usual norms and customs and regulations of this opposite party bank; the complainant submitted voucher and paid amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank counter to sent amount to the A/c.No.025301505836 through NEFT held with opposite party No.2 and as per the voucher submitted by complainant and basing on the particulars mentioned therein and in the NEFT voucher this opposite party transferred the said amount to opposite party No.2 of the complaint.  It is submitted by this opposite party that they have neither done any mistake nor shown any negligence as mentioned in the notice.

     

       The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the complainant informed that he has mentioned the account No.025301505836 instead of 025301505838 in the NEFT voucher and also informed the amount was not transferred to the A/c.No.025301505838.  The opposite party also submitted that the request of complainant the same was immediately informed and also sent e-mail to opposite party No.2 for return the amount No.2 already transferred the account to the account number mentioned by the complainant.  This opposite party further submits that they are no way concerned with the above said mistake done by the complainant and they are not responsible for mistake committed by the complainant and this opposite party is not responsible for the incorrect information mentioned in the voucher by the remitter  regarding beneficiary’s account no. or etc., and this opposite party is also not responsible for the incorrect credit accorded by opposite party No.2 due to incorrect information provided by the complainant and the opposite party No.1 submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs against the opposite parties.

 

6.   The opposite party No.2 did not file any counter/written version.

 

7.   On behalf of the complainant, chief affidavit of complainant is received as  

       the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4  are marked.

 

 

8.   On behalf of the opposite party No.1, the chief affidavit of opposite party

       No.1 received as the evidence of RW1 and on behalf of the opposite party

       Exs.B1 and B2 documents are marked.

 

9.   On behalf of opposite party No.2 no affidavit was filed and no documents

       were filed.

 

10.  On behalf of complainant, PW1 examined.  Ex.A1; Photo copy of S.B. Account bearing No.81115290662 of Vinjamur ADB, Ex.A2 is a letter addressed to opposite party ICICI  bank, Hyderabad, Ex.A3 is office copy of  legal notice dated 02-05-2014 and Ex.A4 is served postal acknowledgement.

 

11.  Written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant and opposite party

        No.1.

12.  No written arguments filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.

 

13.  Arguments on behalf of both parties heard.

 

14.  Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant and opposite party No.1.

 

 15.  Now, the points for consideration are:

        1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against

            the opposite parties 1 and 2 under section 12 of Consumer

            Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opposite

            parties 1 and 2 are maintainable?

       2)  To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

16. POINT NO.1:  The learned counsel for the complainant submits by relying upon Exs.A2 and A3 that the opposite party No.1 erroneously credited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- into the account bearing No.025301505836 of ICICI Noida instead of 025301505838 and inspite of issuing of Ex.A3 notice as the opposite parties failed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-  with interest, the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

17.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 submits by relying upon the contents of Ex.B1 that the complainant himself filled the application for RTGS/NEFT remittance on 30-01-2014 by showing the No.025301505836 and on the application filled by the complainant himself, the opposite party No.1 transferred the said amount of account No.025301505836 and hence there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 as Ex.B1 was filled by the complainant himself and he submits that taking advantage of the  writing in Ex.B1, the complainant cannot be permitted to take advantage against the opposite party No.1 and submits for dismissal of  the complaint  and with costs.   

 

   18.    In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for the both parties and as seen from the contents from Ex.B1 application for RTGS/NEFT remittance, the complainant himself noted the bank account as 025301505836 and the opposite party No.1 transferred the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the   account number which was noted by the complainant, as the complainant himself furnished the bank account number for transfer of Rs.1,50,000/- which is shown as  025301505836.

 

       The contents of Ex.B1 application submitted by complainant shows as follows:

CPF-8        APPLICATION FOR RTGS/NEFT REMITTANCE          Comp: 2200148                                                                                                   100999142 Date : 30-01-2014   State Bank of India                                         ICICI NOIDASEC 61 Branch            Code: 0253                Please remit the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) as per details below by debiting my/our account No.025301505836 for the total amount (including your charges.) Name of the beneficiary: Sre Madan Guddati Destination Bank’s Name & Branch  ICICI NOIDA Sec-61 IFSC Code ICIC0000253                          Account No.025301505836 Amount (in words) Rupees one lakh fifty thousand rupees only. Name of the Applicant: M.Jayaramaiah Addres M.JAYARAMAIAH              Teacher, Vinjamur Tel.No./Mobile No.09441686305 Signature               M.Jayaramaiah (Please see conditions on the reverse) Amount      Rs.1,50,000/- Charges                    15/- Total           Rs.1,50,015/- Date of Transfer/Cash……… Amount……………………….. Scroll No……………………… UTR No…………………………

 

    By relying upon the contents of Ex.B1 application, as the complainant himself filled Ex.B1 application by noting account number as 025301505836 in Ex.B1.

        We are of the opinion that the contents of Ex.A2 letter will not give much importance, as the complainant himself is the scribe of Ex.B1 Application.  By relying upon the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.1 and hence the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.  In view of the above said discussion, we answer this point against the complainant.

 

20.  POINT NO.2: In view of our answering on POINTNo.1 against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 has to be dismissed.

         In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 17th day of OCTOBER, 2017.    

                          

                    Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

04-08-2015

:

Manda Jaya Ramaiah, S/o.Late China Penchala Reddy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, residing at Vinayakanagar, Pathuru, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

RW1

27-08-2015

:

L.Kota Reddy, S/o.Gopal Reddy, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Vinjamuru branch.

                                                                       

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	24-08-2010	:	Photostat copy of bank pass book bearing account No.11368001006 issued by the opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant along with computerized print of statement of transfer challan particulars.
Ex.A2	01-02-2014	:	Printed copy of letter addressed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A3	02-05-2014	:	Office copy of legal notice got issued by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2 along with two registered post receipts.
Ex.A4	-05-2014	:	Postal acknowledgement.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY                     

 

Ex.B1	30-01-2014	:	Application for RTGS/NEFT Remittance.
Ex.B2	24-05-2014	:	Office copy of reply notice.

 

                                                              Id/-                               

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri Md.Rahimkhan, Advocate, Nellore.
2. Sri P.Gangadhar Reddy and Smt.I.Sobha Rani, Advocate, 23/826/1, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nelllore-52400.3
3. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Rep. by its Manager, Noida Branch,Sector – 61,Delhi.                                                                                

 

Date when order copies were issued: