Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/257/2018

The Divisional Manager, and 2 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

B. Parthasarathy, - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. K.P.Kiran Rao

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 257 of 2018

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.278 of 2013 dated 13.08.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chennai (South).

 

Wednesday, the 20^th day of April 2022

 

1.  The Divisional Manager

     Canara Bank

     (NEFT Customer Facilitation Centre)

     4^th Floor, Canara Building (Clearing)

     Adi Marzban Road, 

     Ballard Estate

     Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 038.

 

2.  The Asst. General Manager/ Nodal Officer

     Canara Bank, Circle Office

     No. 524, Anna Salai,

     Teynampet,

     Chennai -600 018

    

3.  The Branch Manager

     Canara Bank, Royapettah Branch

     Golden Tower,

     No.260, 262 Royapettah High Road

     Chennai – 600 014.                                          .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties

 

- Vs –

B. Parthasarathy

No.20, Raman 1^st Street

Thottam, Lakshmi Nagar West

Mudichur, Chennai- 600 048.                                   .. Respondent/ Complainant

   

    Counsel for Appellants /Opposite Parties          : M/s. K. P. Kiran Rao

    Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant                   :  M/s. Dhanasekar                                                                           

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 08.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellants and Respondent and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellants / Opposite Parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 13.08.2018 made in C.C. No.278 of 2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), allowing the complaint filed by the respondent  herein.

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellants are the opposite parties.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3.   The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  It is the case of the Complainant that he was working in Neel Metal Fanalca Environment Pvt.Ltd.  He resigned from the employment and claimed Provident Fund from Employees Provident Fund Organisation for a total claim of Rs.27,765/- pertaining to P.F.No.TN/53197/5924 in respect of his employment.  Employees Provident Fund Organisation disbursed of his claim amount through their Bankers namely, State Bank of India, vide National Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) on 12.09.2012 and the same has been credited on 20.09.2012 in Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321.  The Provident Fund amount was wrongly credited into Savings Bank A/C.No.0938118000321 standing in the name of one S.V.Mohan.  Immediately, a complaint was given to Employees Provident Fund Organisation and it was clarified that the 3^rd opposite party did not counter verify the account holder’s name with the account number, while accepting the amount through NEFT.  The Employees Provident Fund Organisation by its letter dated 01.11.2012 insisted the third opposite party to verify the accounts and return the amount by way of Demand Draft favouring ‘Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’ payable at Chennai, so that they can re-credit the amount to the complainant’s account.  The complainant also sent a letter dated 21.11.2012 to the 3^rd Opposite party, for which he received a reply dated 03.12.2012 stating that the account holder has already withdrawn the amount through ATM between 02.11.2012 to 06.11.2012 and further replied that the 3^rd opposite party has sent a letter to the account holder to refund the amount withdrawn and only then, the complainant’s Provident Fund amount could be returned back to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.  Thereafter, there was no development over the issue and on many occasions when the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party, except a mechanical reply of asking the complainant to wait, no improvement was shown in resolving or explaining as to why the 3^rd opposite party permitted the concerned account holder in Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321 to withdraw the amount, though the amount was deposited on 20.09.2012 into the account and on various occasions the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party seeking to freeze the account or withhold the amount that was wrongly deposited.  Even after receipt of the letter dated 01.11.2012 sent by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, the 3^rd opposite party had lethargically and negligently permitted the account holder to withdraw the amount, till 06.11.2012.  Further, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 13.12.2012 to the 3^rd opposite party, seeking for return of the amount.  By reply letter 12.01.2013 the 3^rd opposite party had given the very same reply stating that they have requested the account holder of Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321 to return the amount.  The Employees Provident Fund Organisation again sent a letter dated 31.01.2013 to the 3^rd opposite party asking for refund of the provident fund amount but there was no proper response from the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant again sent a notice dated 21.05.2013 to the opposite parties to look into the above issue and return the amount rightfully belonging to the complainant to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation as per their letter.  The 3^rd opposite party replied vide letter dated 25.06.2013 stating that the account holder had taken advantage of the situation and had withdrawn the amount.  Therefore, there is clear deficiency of service by the 3^rd opposite party and hence this Complaint was filed for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.27,765/- towards compensation for the Provident Fund amount legally entitled to the complainant ;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for acts of deficiency / dereliction in service and negligence, pain and sufferings and mental agony to the complainant; and
3. To pay the costs of this proceedings. 

 

4. Resisting the complaint filed by the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party had filed a version stating that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary parties namely, EPFO and S.V.Mohan, the holder of Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321, in whose account the amount was wrongly deposited by EPFO.  Therefore, the complaint has to be dismissed on this ground itself.  The EPFO who has disbursed the claim amount of Rs.27,765/- through their Bankers namely, State Bank of India, Chennai vide NEFT, negligently into a wrong account number, namely Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321 instead of the complainant’s Savings Bank Account No.0938118000331, which is the root cause for the wrong credit.  Hence, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation is responsible and liable for the grievance of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant has to look up to the EPFO for redressal of his grievance since it is they who had committed deficiency of service/ dereliction in duty, in crediting the amount to a wrong account, due to their negligence.  Now, the EPFO and the complainant are trying to shift the blame on the opposite parties Bank, which cannot be entertained.  The mistake has been committed by EPFO and the opposite parties are in no way responsible.  The EPFO letter dated 01.11.2012 was served on the Bank only on 07.11.2012 by post and immediately steps were taken to verify the account.  Unfortunately and contrary to the expectation, the account holder of SB Account No.0938118000321 had taken advantage of the situation and withdrawn the said amount through ATM card, between 02.11.2012 and 06.11.2012.  The 3^rd opposite party had sent a reply dated 20.11.2012 to the EPFO informing the said facts.  The 3^rd opposite party had also called upon the account holder of SB Account No.0938118000321 vide their letter dated 22.11.2012 to refund the amount wrongly credited, for giving credit to the correct account.  Against the complainant’s letter dated 21.11.2012, the 3^rd opposite party had sent a reply dated 03.12.2012 stating that the account holder had already withdrawn the amount through ATM between 02.11.2012 to 06.11.2012 and that the 3^rd opposite party had sent a letter to the account holder to return the amount withdrawn by him and then only the amount could be returned to EPFO.  The 3^rd opposite party reiterated that the EPFO letter dated 01.11.2012 was served on the Bank only on 07.11.2012 by post and immediate steps were taken to verify the account.  The complainant has made such allegations only to build up a case against the opposite parties, with a view to make unlawful enrichment.  For the complainant’s legal notices dated 13.12.2012 and 21.05.2013, the 3^rd opposite party had sent suitable replies through their counsel notice dated 12.01.2013 and 25.06.2013 respectively, stating that the Bank had sent a letter to the account holder of S.B. Account No.0938118000321 for return of the amount withdrawn by him, that has been wrongly credited to his account and then only the Bank would be in a position to return the amount to EPFO.  They are neither liable to pay Rs.27,765/- towards compensation for the PF amount nor they are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the alleged deficiency/ dereliction in service, negligence, pain, sufferings and mental agony.   Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and 9 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.  On the side of the opposite parties also 9 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9, along with proof affidavit.

 

6.  The District Forum after analyzing the entire material placed on record, has come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties and thus allowed the complaint in part, directing the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.27,765/- being EPFO claim amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

 

7.  Counsel for the Appellants/ opposite parties submitted that it is the EPFO, who disbursed the claim amount of Rs.27,765/- negligently to the wrong account number and issued instructions to their Bankers namely, State Bank of India to credit the amount to Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321 instead of the complainant’s account No.0938118000331, vide NEFT, which was the root cause for the wrong credit.  Hence, it is the EPFO who is responsible and liable for the grievance of the complainant and not the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant has to approach the EPFO for redressal of his grievance since it is the EPFO who has committed deficiency of service/ dereliction of duty by crediting the amount to a wrong account.  But the EPFO and the complainant are trying to shift the burden on the appellants Bank, which cannot be entertained.  Without considering these aspects properly, the District Forum has come to a wrong conclusion that EPFO has rightly disbursed the amount to the 3^rd opposite party for crediting the amount in the account of the complainant but the 3^rd opposite party had wrongly credited into the account of S.V.Mohan, which amounts to deficiency of service.  But the District Forum had failed to consider the fact that mistake has been committed only by the EPFO and the appellants/ opposite parties are in no way responsible, for the wrong credit made by EPFO through their Bankers State Bank of India, which is clearly evident from the EPFO letter dated 01.11.2012.  Counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties further relied on the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 12.10.2017, in the case of ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. Vs. Sarita Vashisht & Anr.  This judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein it is stated that wrong transaction which occurred due to incorrect information about account number provided by the sender of money, cannot be taken as deficiency of service.   Furthermore, the letter dated 01.11.2012 sent by the EPFO, marked as Ex.B2, requesting the opposite parties to return the amount by way of Demand Draft to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, was received by the opposite parties only on 07.11.2012.  By the time, the said S.V.Mohan has withdrawn the amount deposited in his account.  Under such circumstances, the EPFO is a necessary party in the issue.  Without considering all these aspects, the District Forum has allowed the complaint.  Hence, the appellants sought to set aside the order of the District Forum.

 

8. Countering the same, counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that the Appellant/ 3^rd Opposite party did not counter verify the Account Holder’s name with the Account No.0938118000321.  The appellant/ 3^rd opposite party has not taken any steps to prevent the withdrawal by the said S.V.Mohan.  The total amount deposited was Rs.27,765/-.  Even as per Ex.B3, Account Statement of S.V.Mohan, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn on 02.11.2012, another sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn on 03.11.2012 and a sum of Rs.7,000/- was withdrawn on 06.11.2012.   Ex.A2 has been served on the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party on 03.11.2012.  Even after receipt of Ex.A2, the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party did not take any steps to reverse the remaining amount of Rs.17,605/- from the account of the said Mohan.  If at all the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party had reacted and taken steps immediately, atleast Rs.17,605/- would have been saved.  But, the 3^rd opposite party has not taken any steps.  Instead, the opposite parties have taken a stand that the said S.V.Mohan and EPFO are necessary parties to decide the issues.  The said stand taken by the opposite parties is not correct since S.V.Mohan or the EPFO are not service providers and there is no privity of contract between EPFO, S.V.Mohan and the Respondent / complainant.   Therefore, certainly there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties Bank and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.

 

9.  Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellants and the respondent. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the material available on record and since we have discussed the facts in detail above, we refrain from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane are discussed hereunder.   

 

10.  The case of the complainant is that he was working in Neel Metal Fenalca Environment P.Ltd.  He resigned from the company and claimed provident fund from EPFO office.  The total claim amount is Rs.27,765/- pertaining to PF No.TN/53/97/5924 for his employment.  The EPFO has disbursed the claim amount of Rs.27,765/- through its Bankers namely, State Bank of India through National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT) on 12.09.2012 and the same was credited on 20.09.2012 through UTR Ref. Nos. SBINH12257882484 and SBINH12257883817 in SB Account No.0938118000321.  The PF amount was wrongly credited into SB Account 0938118000321, standing in the name of one S.V.Mohan.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the 3^rd opposite party has not verified the Account holder’s name with the Account holder’s Savings Account number and accepted the amount sent by NEFT.  Moreover, when the EPFO by letter dated 01.11.2012 asked the 3^rd opposite party to verify the records and return the amount by way of Demand Draft favouring Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the same was not done by the 3^rd opposite party.  Whereas, according to the appellant/ opposite parties, it is the EPFO who had disbursed the claim amount of Rs.27,765/- to a wrong account number through their Bankers namely, State Bank of India, Chennai vide NEFT in Savings Bank Account No.0938118000321 instead of the complainant’s Savings Bank Account No.0938118000331. It has happened only due to the negligence of the EPFO.  Therefore the EPFO and S.V.Mohan are necessary parties. But it is the submission of the counsel for the complainant that neither S.V.Mohan nor the EPFO are service providers and there is no privity of contract between EPFO, S.V.Mohan and the Respondent/ complainant.   From the facts of the case, we find that the EPFO has sent the PF claim amount of Rs.27,765/- through their Bankers SBI, by mentioning the wrong account number.   Therefore, naturally, the amount was deposited in the account of S.V.Mohan.  Later, when it was found that an error has been committed with regard to the Savings Bank Account Number, the EPFO has sent a letter dated 01.11.2012 to the opposite parties to return the amount.  But the said letter was received by the opposite parties only on 07.11.2012, which could be seen from the seal affixed on the said letter.  By the time, the said Mohan has withdrawn the amount.  Therefore, prima facie it appears that the fault is only on the EPFO.  Therefore, the EPFO is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the issues involved in this case.  But, unfortunately, the complainant has not added him as a party.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside. 

 

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the order dated 13.08.2018 passed in C.C. No.278 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is set aside.   

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2022