This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                       24-09-14 in the presence of Sri D. Prasanna Kumar, advocate for the complainant and Sri B.S.R.K. Prasad, advocate for the 2nd opposite party; the first opposite party being remained set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President: -    The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.38,000/- and compensation of Rs.12,000/- for deficiency in service besides costs.

2.   In short the complaint averments are these:

          The complainant is carrying on business in fertilizers and Pesticides under the name and style of M/s Lakshmi Traders at Amaravathi by way of self employment for earning livelihood.   The complainant is having open cash credit account with the 1^st opposite party vide A/c.No.000913046000256.   During the course of business the complainant on 31-10-12 sent Rs.38,000/- through RTGS-NEFT through the 1^st opposite party to M/s Krishak Bharathi Co-operative Limited, Hyderabad.   The complainant later  learnt that M/s Krishak Bharathi Co-operative Limited, Hyderabad did not receive Rs.38,000/-.   The complainant after due enquiries came to know  that the opposite parties instead of crediting Rs.38,000/- to the account of M/s KRIBCO credited it to another customer of the 2^nd opposite party namely M/s Sai Deep Enterprises.   The complainant approached both the opposite parties in person and through letters to do justice.   The 2^nd opposite party informed the 1^st opposite party regarding non availability of funds in the account of M/s Sai Deep Enterprises.   The opposite parties though received complainant’s notice kept quite without giving any reply.   On account of the said attitude of the opposite parties the complainant suff mental agony, hardship and inconvenience and lost reputation in business circles.   The complainant estimated the same at Rs.12,000/-.  The opposite parties not crediting the amount to proper person amounted to deficiency in service.   The complaint therefore may be allowed.

3.   The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.     

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the nature complainant’s business at Amaravathi and his source of income.   The complainant is not a consumer of the 2^nd opposite party and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   The complainant has to mention the correct destiny account number to remit the amount correctly.   As per the system prevailing in the banking sector the remitter/originating bank scrutinizes account details given by their customer, thereafter an intimation will be passed to the destined bank to remit that amount to the account furnished by them.   The                         2^nd opposite party remitted the amount into the account furnished by the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party after receiving notice from the complainant informed the customer to refund the said amount which was wrongly credited.   But the said customer did not respond so far.   The complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands.   The complaint therefore may be dismissed.

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Ex.B-1 on behalf of complainant and                          2^nd opposite party were marked.

6.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the 2^nd opposite party?
2. Among the opposite parties who committed deficiency in service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount
4. To what relief?

7.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant is having account with the 1^st opposite party bank.
2. The complainant remitted Rs.38,000/- on 31-10-12 to its supplier by utilizing RTGS-NEFT facility.    
3. The 2^nd opposite party received intimation from the 1^st opposite party for transfer of amount who in turn remitted that amount to one  Sai Deep Enterprises.
4. The complainant gave notice to the opposite parties (Exs.A-4 to A-6).
5. The 1^st opposite party made correspondence with the              2^nd opposite party.

8.  POINT No.1:-   The complainant is not a customer of the                       2^nd opposite party.  The complainant did not avail any services of the 2^nd opposite party.   Under those circumstances the contention of the 2^nd opposite party that complainant is not its consumer is having considerable force.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the 2^nd opposite party.

9.   POINT No.2:-     Ex.A-3 is the copy of correspondence between NEFT cell of Andhra Bank service center, Mumbai and the 1^st opposite party.   In Ex.A-3 the 1^st opposite party informed NEFT cell Andhra Bank Service Center, Mumbai as detailed infra:

          “We in Amaravathi Branch-0009 had sent a NEFT on 28-09-12 UTR No.ANDBN12272716090 to ICICI Bank, the code is ICIC0001109.   Actually by mistake of customer he wrote the a/c No.110905000055 instead of 110905000. Actual beneficiary A/c no is A 110905000065.   So please follow up the issue and do us favour as early as possible”.

10.   The said averments revealed that the complainant wrote the account number as 110905000055 instead of 110905000065.   The complainant has to furnish correct account number for transmission of that amount either through RTGS or NEFT as rightly contended by the 2^nd opposite party.  

11.   The complainant did not file counterfoil before this Forum to know the account number he mentioned. That is why the complainant did not specifically mention who among the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.   The responsibility of the 2^nd opposite party is to remit that amount as furnished by the 1^st opposite party as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party.

12.  In the absence of counterfoil or account passbook by the complainant it cannot be said that the 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service.  A duty is cast on the 1^st opposite party to verify the account number and name of customer while transmitting amount to customer of another bank and has to return either the account number or the beneficiary name not tallied.    The deficiency in service if any was committed by the 1^st opposite party as per the recitals extracted supra.   The 1^st opposite party also did not file the remittance form submitted by the complainant.   The contention of the complainant remained unrebutted as the 1^st opposite party remained exparte for the reasons best known to it.   We can therefore infer that the 1^st opposite party alone committed deficiency in service by remitting that amount of Rs.38,000/- without proper scrutiny.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant and against the 1st opposite party.

13.  POINT No.3:- The complainant claimed Rs.12,000/- as compensation for mental agony, hardship and loss of reputation in business circle.  To rebut the contention of the 1^st opposite party mentioned in Ex.A-3 (narrated supra) the complainant did not choose to file copy of counterfoil of remittance form.   Under those circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant to the effect that he had wrongly mentioned the account number.  We therefore opine that the complainant is also not diligent in furnishing correct account particulars of M/s Kribco and thereby the complainant is not entitled to any damages.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.        

14.   POINT No.4:-    In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as mentioned as below:

1. The complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- against the 2^nd opposite party.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to refund of Rs.38,000/- to the complainant together with interest from 31-10-12 as applicable to the complainant’s account.
3. The complainant has to bear the costs of the complaint.

     Dictated to Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 1^st day of October, 2014.

          MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:-

                                                                                         PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.