Haryana

Karnal

CC/94/2016

Nishant Pannu S/o Dharambir Singh Pannu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Hemant Sharma

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.94 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 29.03.2016

                                                         Date of decision:09.02.2018

 

Nishant Pannu son of Shri Dharambir Singh Pannu permanent resident of house no.501, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal and resident of 27, North Humberland Road Southampton Hampshire U.K.

                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. Axis Bank Ltd. 3/250/I Shakti colony, near Ambedkar Chowk Mall Road, Karnal through its Manager.

2.  Axis Bank Ltd. Corporate office Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Warli Mumbai-400025 through its C.E.O.

3.  Axis Bank Ltd. Head office Corporate office Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Warli Mumbai-400025 through its M.D.

                                  

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Apar Singh Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Deepak Saini Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that complainant is having S/B account no.911010024919957 with OP no.1 at Karnal in Axis Bank. Complainant on 27.1.2015 tried to transfer the funds for his study from his abovesaid account to LLOYD Bank Southampton U.K. through e-banking but failed and advised by OP no.1 to register the beneficiary account during working hours. As per the instructions of OP, the complainant registered his account no.53748568 B/C no.LOYDGB21J89 & Passport no.G5872998 & address: 27, North Hamberland Road Southampton Hampshire U.K. with the aforesaid account with Axis Bank Ltd. through e-banking which was successfully registered on 30.1.2015 and through e-banking proceeded for transfer of 2000 pounds (Rs.1,90,736.02/-) from his aforesaid account with OP to his account with LLOYDS Bank U.K. Thereafter, the complainant was astonished to know that the said money of 2000 pounds was got deducted on 31.01.2015 from the account S/B Account no. 911010024919957 with OP no.1 but the said amount was not transferred/credit in the account no.53748568, B/c no.LOYDGB21J89 of the complainant at U.K. As such complainant approached the OP through e-mail and through his father and requested them to credit the said amount in his aforesaid U.K. account. Lateron, OP stated that due to some wrong IBAN number the said amount has been credited in the account of some third person of North Hamberland Road Southampton Hampshire U.K bank. Complainant also approached his LLOYDS Bank in this matter and complainant received a letter dated 30.10.2015 from the said bank wherein it has been clearly stated that the correct process is for Axis Bank to recall the funds, as the funds were sent from this bank and when they receive this recall request, they will proceed for recall the funds back from third party. After receiving the said letter complainant requested the OPs for recalling the aforesaid fund/amount but till date no action has been taken by the OPs and prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; maintainability; cause of action and locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, is submitted that the complainant at his own registered himself for net-banking and transferred the amount in question, so there is no fault on the part of the OPs. It is further submitted that neither the OPs instructed to the complainant to register his account nor for proceeded for transfer. Such have been done by the complainant at his own without making any contact with the OP, but now has filed abovesaid complaint by making false story. It is further submitted that the facts qua deduction of 2000 pounds (Rs.1,90,36.02/-) are  matter of record and OPs were not aware about the aforesaid e-transaction done by the complainant at his own. The OPs came to know when the complainant after completion of such wrong transaction approached to the OPs and stated that he had done such wrong transaction through e-banking. Even without any fault on their part the OP being loyal towards their customer tried their level best to help the complainant. During enquiry it has been revealed that the amount has been transferred in another account of third person and said wrong transaction has been done by complainant himself by using e-banking and now the wrongly transferred amount in the account of third person is not able to be returned in the account of complainant as per prevailing Law of the Country where the account exist of third person. Such amount is returnable only if third person in whose account funds has been wrongly transferred, allow for this. The OPs have made their serious efforts to recall funds and in that regard sent e-mails to said LLOYDS Bank.  Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C31 and closed the evidence on 17.4.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Nitin Soodh Manager Ex.R1/A and document Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 7.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant is having saving bank account no. 911010024919957 with OP no.1 and on 30.1.2015 registered his account no.53748568, B/c no.LOYDGB21J89 & passport no.G5872998 & address 27, North Humberland Road Southampton Hampshire U.K. with his aforesaid account through e-banking which was successfully registered and through e-banking the complainant transferred 2000 pounds (Rs.1,90,736.02/-) from his account with OP no.1 to the account with LLOYDS Bank, U.K. On 31.1.2015 the complainant came to know that the said amount has been credited in the account of some third person instead of his account due to wrong IBAN number.

7.             According to the complainant, he approached his LLOYDS bank, which told that correct process is that Axis Bank to recall the funds and accordingly the complainant contacted the OPs but the OPs did not taken any action in the matter. It is stated by the complainant that it is clear from the copies of e-mails placed on the file by the complainant. From Ex.C9 wherein the OPs stated that they would respond within one working day. From e-mail dated 20.2.2015 Ex.C11 it is further clear that OPs stated that they were looking into the matter and would respond within seven working days.

8.             According to the OPs, the complainant at his own registered himself for net-banking and transferred the amount in question himself through e-banking, so there is no fault on the part of the OPs. The OPs stated that they came to know about the same when the complainant approached after completion of wrong transaction. It is further stated that the OPs being loyal to their client i.e. complainant tried their level best to help the complainant in the matter. As per law of the country the amount is returnable only if the third person in whose account funds has been wrongly transferred, allow for this. It is further stated that the OPs have made their serious efforts to recall the funds and there was/is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that complainant also approached the Financial Ombudsman Service, London who gave report Ex.C31 after due inquiry in the matter. The conclusion of the same is as under:-

        “ Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the Lloyds acted in line with what I would expect it to reasonably do. When it was contacted by JP Morgan on 13 March that a recall should be done, the Lloyd contacted its customer several times to request authority to remove the funds.

           Unfortunately, by the time that Axis and JP Morgan requested this recall, there were already insufficient funds in the third party’s account. This means that Lloyds couldn’t ring-fence the money. It also couldn’t go into the third party’s account without its consent to remove it, especially as the removal of 2000 pounds would have put the customer into debit.

             As a third party did not respond there was nothing more that the Lloyds could do.

                I understand that this whole situation has been on going  for over arrear now which has been very stressful but I don’t think that I can reasonably hold the Lloyds responsible for this. This is because when it became apparent that it wasn’t getting a response from its customer, it told JP Morgan in good time in April 2015, which is less than a month after the recall was requested.

             I cannot comment on whether JP Morgan communicated this to Axis Bank and in turn to you, but as far as Lloyds are concerned, it did what I would expect it to do and told the bank acting on your behalf about this.

                Because of this, I cannot recommend that the Lloyds does anything more.”

 

10.           From the above, it is clear that Lloyds has tried its best and contacted the customer several times and it could not go into third party’s account without his consent. It is pertinent to mention here that from the copy of e-mail Ex.C9 placed on the file by the complainant it is clear that the OP has responded to the complainant as is clear from this e-mail wherein the OPs stated that they would respond within one working day. Similarly, from e-mail dated 20.2.2015 Ex.C11 it is further clear that the OPs have responded as is clear from this e-mail wherein it is stated by the OPs that they were looking into the matter and would respond within seven working days. From the evidence of the case, it is clear that the OPs have contacted the Lloyds, who tried its best. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant himself transferred the fund through e-banking into the account of third person and for his acts the complainant cannot blame the OPs. The OPs have tried their bests to help the complainant in the matter. In these circumstances, we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 9.2.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member               Member