BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.335 of 2020
Date of Instt. 05.10.2020
Date of Decision: 06.01.2023
R. K. Sethi aged about 75 years S/o L. Sh. D. D. Sethi R/o 243, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Model Town Branch, Jalandhar Through its Manager.
2. Federal Bank, G. S. Road branch, Shillong (Meghalaya).
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Ravinder Manuja, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is senior citizen of India and was maintaining his joint account bearing OD account No.755400285000005 with the OP No.1. On 21.11.2019, the complainant visited to the OP NO.1 and made transfer of Rs.72,000/- through NEFT in the account of Helynad Sangam with account No.11900100246998 with OP No.2. The complainant filled up the necessary documents on the instructions of the OP No.1 for remittance accordingly, the said amount was remitted and the necessary credit was given to the account of Helynad Sangam maintained with OP No.2. Helyand Sangam on checking account with opposite party no.2 noticed regarding the credit of Rs.72,000/- in a/c no.11900100246998 received through NEFT. Helynad Sangam intimated branch manager of opposite party no.2 on email to transfer back this amount to the remitting bank/ account from where it is received as the amount does not belong to him and has been sent wrongly to his account by the sender. Helynad Sangam is residing abroad and is unable to visit the branch personally to complete the formality for reversal of the said entry of Rs.72,000/- which have been erroneously/inadvertently remitted and credited to his account. The complainant on coming to know about this remittance having been made erroneously immediately contacted the OP No.1 as per letter dated 25/11/2019 requested to follow up with OP No.2 for getting this amount of Rs.72,000/- retransferred to his account no. 755400285000005 as the amount has been remitted erroneously to the account of Mr. Helynad Sangam. The complainant also gave letter issued by Helynad Sangam regarding this wrong credit in his account no.11900100246998. The OP No.1 assured the complainant for taking up the matter with OP No.2 for reversal of the said amount of Rs.72000/- on the strength of letter dated 25/11/2019 of the complainant as well as email letter received of Mr. Helynad Sangam. The OP No.1 after having been satisfied with the request of the complainant mentioned under 5 and 6 above for recall of said amount of Rs.72,000/- took up the matter with OP No.2 on telephone 7/8 times but OP No.2 did not cooperate. After knowing this from OP No.1, the complainant brought this matter to the notice of Chief Operating Officer, HO of OP No. 2 as per email dated 14/02/2020, who advised as per email dated 14/02/2020 to route the request through his bank (proper channel) for further assistance in this regard. Accordingly, the complainant approached his bank OP No.1, who initiated the process of recall of funds of Rs.72,000/- on 18/02/2020 through email to its HO cc RO. On 07.03.2020, OP No.1 submitted the requisite information through email to its HO in response to email dated 5/03/20 for further action. Being Senior Citizen of India, the complainant was badly in need of money due to COVID-19, he reminded OP No.1 through emails dated 27/04/2020, 11/05/2020, 21/05/2020 and 29/05/20, but to no response. Due to such inordinate delay of over 81 days and getting no response from OP No.1 despite its repeated reminders as mentioned above, the complainant contacted HO of OP No.1 through email dated 2/06/2020. NEFT Dept eVB of OP No.1 advised them as per email dated 3/06/2020 mentioning "Kindly share recall letter in the attached format on priority basis". The complainant submitted its Indemnity on Stamp paper dated 05/06/2020 to OP No.1, which was duly accepted by OP No.1 and assured to comply with instructions of NEFT Dept eVB. On 5/06/2020 and 08/06/2020 Digital-Customer services, Digital Banking dept HO Vadodra advised OP No.1 to expedite. Again on 9/06/220 NEFT Dept eVB sent an email to Digital.cs-Jalandhar Region mentioning importantly:-
“Federal Bank is asking for recall cum indemnity letter in the attached format. We have already shared recall letter format to the branch, but we are not receiving any respond from branch.”
That despite approval and follow up by HO, indemnity dated 5/06/2020 submitted by the complainant to the satisfaction of the OP No.1, it is apparent that firstly OP No.1 delayed the matter of recall of this amount of Rs.72,000/- by over 81 days by not responding and then despite the directions given by respective HO authorities to OP No.1 & 2, the OP No.1 & 2 failed to give the necessary credit/payment of Rs.72,000 to the complainant. Hence, there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to give the necessary credit/payment of Rs.72,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% of RS.12,960/-. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not filed by competent person. The NEFT transaction has not been effected at the request of complainant rather it has been effected by Asha Sethi, who is neither complainant nor has authorized the complainant to file the present complaint against OPs. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and it deserves to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and he has intentionally, deliberately and culpably concealed, manipulated and concocted facts and made false allegations to misuse the process of law. The complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and an attempt to make unlawful gains. The true facts is that Asha Sethi having account no.755400285000005 with Opposite Party transferred a sum of Rs.72,000/- through NEFT in bank account no.11900100246998 of Helyna D Sangma with Federal Bank, Shillong Branch having IFSC No.FDRL0001190 on 22.11.2019. Subsequently, the complainant reported that the said transfer is to a wrong account holder due to error. Helynad Sangam has informed his bank i.e. Federal Bank that this remittance does not belong to him and the amount may be remitted to the sender account and as such it was requested by Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 to contact Opposite Party no.2 and get the funds released, in this connection complainant also submitted copy of message alleged to be sent by Helynad Sangam to Federal Bank, Shillong Branch stating that he had noticed from his account no.11900100246998 with Opposite Party no.2 that a credit payment of Rs.72.000/- in his account does not belong to him and it may be returned to remitting bank. Observing difference in the name of beneficiary i.e., "Helyna D Sangma" and "Helynad Sangam" and sincerely believing and relying on representation made by complainant to be correct, the opposite party took up the matter with Federal Bank, Opposite Party No.2 and requested them to remit the Rs.72,000/- sent through NEFT in the name of Helyna D Sangma. Lot of efforts were made by opposite party no.1 in writing as well telephonically to retrieve the amount alleged to have been wrongly sent by complainant to Federal Bank inspite lockdown, curfew etc. imposed by Government due to COVID-19 Pandemic. On 03.06.2020 the Federal Bank replied that there is no name mismatch in respect of account to which amount of Rs 72,000/- has been transferred through NEFT. In other words Helyna D Sangma is account holder of account no.11900100246998 and not Helynad Sangam and the amount has been rightly credited to his account under NEFT. An indemnity bond in their format was sought from Opposite Party No.1 for release of said funds along with consent of their account holder to safeguard their interest. The beneficiary, Helyna D Sangma never reported or confirmed to OP No.1 that Rs.72,000/- has been wrongly credited in his account through NEFT. Further the format of Indemnity Bond required that payment under NEFT has been wrongly made due to error or mistake on part of sending bank by way of mismatch in account number, bank name, branch name and name of beneficiary or there is multiple credit or excess amount transfer to the account of beneficiary. Since beneficiary never requested or confirmed to OP No.1 to retrieve the payment of Rs.72,000/- and there has been no error or mistake on the part of OP No.1 so Indemnity Bonds in the format prescribed was not required and OP No.1 requested complainant to resolve the matter at their own level as opposite party is nothing to do with it. There has been no cause of action in favour of complainant against the OP No.1. The complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint is absolutely false, since the payment made by Asha Sethi through NEFT to the bank account no.11900100246998 of Helyna D Sangma with Opposite Party no.2 has been confirmed by opposite Party no.2 to be correct and there has been no mismatch in the name of account holder. Helyna D Sangma never reported and confirmed that payment of Rs.72,000/- has been wrongly credited to his bank account no. 11900100246998 with Federal Bank, Shillong Branch nor he had requested opposite party no.1 to retrieve it from his account with Federal Bank, shillong branch and remit it to account of Asha Sethi. The opposite party has rightly did not furnish Indemnity Bond and collected amount from the account of Helyna D Sangma with Federal Bank to credit the bank account of complaint. The complaint is absolutely false and deserves to be dismissed. It is further averred that there has been no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1, as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The present complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The opposite party is not liable for the acts of omission and commission of complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was having an account with the OP No.1, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint against the replying opposite party as such it is deserves to be dismissed on this ground only. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has misrepresented the facts before this Commission and has not come to the Commission with clean hands as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own acts, conducts, submissions and omissions and aquisance to file the present complaint as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. That no financial loss or any other losses have occurred to the complainant by the act and conduct of the replying OP as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice on the part of the replying opposite party as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It is admitted fact that the amount of Rs.72,000/- was transferred through NEFT in the account No.11900100246998 with the OP No.2. The complainant has alleged that the amount of Rs.72,000/- was transferred in the account of Helynad Sangam. The beneficiary Helynad Sangam sent an email to the OP No.2 that the amount of Rs.72,000/- has wrongly been transferred in the account of Helynad Sangam due to an error, therefore, the amount of Rs.72,000/- be remitted for crediting in the account of sender of this NEFT. The complainant has proved on record the message of Helynad Sangam Ex.Di and Dii. Perusal of Ex.Dii shows that one Helynad Sangam sent email to the Manager, Federal Bank, GS Road, Shillong which has been forwarded to R. K. Sethi and the complainant R. K. Sethi has further sent an email to the Manager with attachment of these two letters. The OP No.1 has proved on record the copy of the draft Ex.OP1/1, which shows on the back that the name of beneficiary has been mentioned as Helyna D Sangma. Similarly, Ex.OP-1 report of UTR number shows the name of beneficiary Helyna D Sangma. The message has been sent by Helynad Sangam. On the back of of this cheque, the name of the Helynad Sangam has not been mentioned. So, there is a mis-match of the name of the beneficiary, meaning thereby that the name is different. The complainant on the back of this document Ex.OP1/1, which is Ex.OP1/2, has mentioned the account number, IFSC Code and mobile number also. The complainant and OP No.1 has sent number of emails to the OP No.2 for remitting the amount wrongly transferred in the account of Helynad Sangam, but the amount was never transferred. The complainant has proved on record the emails Ex.DIII to Ex.DXII. All these emails were sent by the complainant and the communication and conversation between the OP No.1 and the complainant.
8. As per the written statement, the emails sent to OP No.2 and the documents proved on record by the OP No.1, are Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/19. Ex.OP1/18 is statement of account of Asha Sethi, which clearly shows that the name of the beneficiary for NEFT has been mentioned as Helyna D Sangma and not Helynad Sangam. The other documents filed on record by the OP No.1 show that the emails were sent to the OP No.2 by the OP No.1 to resolve the issue of the complainant and to remit the amount of Rs.72,000/- in the account of the complainant, but the OP No.2 has given the reply that the amount has rightly been credited in the account of Helynad Sangam and there is no error in the transfer of the amount or credit of the amount. OP No.1 has also sent an email to the complainant that as per confirmation given by the OP No.2, the amount has rightly been credited in the account of Helynad Sangam.
9. OP No.2 has denied the receipt of any message, which has been proved by the complainant rather they have asked the OP No.1 nto indemnify the amount of Rs.72,000/-, which has been denied by the OP No.1. Though, OP No2 has confirmed that the amount was rightly credited in the account of the beneficiary Helynad Sangam, but the OP No.2 has failed to show that once the name of the beneficiary on the cheque & other documents has been mentioned as Helyna D Sangma, then how the amount of Rs.72,000/- has been credited in the account of Helynad Sangam. They have not produced on record any rule to show that if right account number is mentioned on the cheque, then it does not matter if the name of the beneficiary is different. The banks are very particular on this point and they never allow to deposit the amount in wrong account, even if there is slight mis-match and if there is any difference in the name of the beneficiary, the amount should be returned and should not be credited in the account of the beneficiary. The complainant has given the IFSC Code number of the branch and has specified the name of the beneficiary, but there is no document filed by the OP No 2 to show that they have contacted and verified the message from the beneficiary Helynad Sangam. There is only oral assertion in the written statement that Helynad Sangam did not come forward to remit the amount of Rs.72,000/-. The OP No.2 has alleged that the email was never sent to them rather the same was sent to R. K. Sethi, but perusal of Ex.DII show that the letter has been addressed to the Manager, Federal Bank. G. S. Road, Shillong by Helynad Sangam and the message is ‘begin forwarded message’ and this message has been forwarded to R. K. Sethi. Even, if for the sake of arguments assumed that this message was never sent through email to the OP No.2, but the same was brought to the notice of the OP No.2 by the complainant or by OP No.1. It was the duty of the OP No.2 to verify about this message from the beneficiary when the account number, name and IFSC code number was specifically in the knowledge of the OP No.2 through OP No.1, but they have not done so nor filed any document on record to prove that they have verified the same. Though, they have confirmed that the amount has been credited in the right account, but from where they came to know that the name of the account holder and the beneficiary is the same. So nothing has come on the record. The document Ex.OP-1 filed by the OP No.2 show that this is an email and Ex.OP1/11, the email proved by OP No.1 are the emails, confirming that there is no mismatch, sent by the OP No.2 to OP No.1. Alongwith this email, the OP No.2 has filed on record the detail given by the OP No.1 to OP No.2 regarding the name of the beneficiary account number, which was informed by the complainant to the OP No.1. This clearly shows that the name of the beneficiary has been mentioned as Helyna D Sangma. To support the email Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP1/11, the OP No.2 has not produced on record the account statement of the beneficiary, in whose account the amount was deposited i.e. account no.11900100246998. They have not filed on record the account statement to clarify the picture, in whose name the account number stands, whether it is in the name of Helyna D Sangma or Helynad Sangam. If it is in the name of Helyna D Sangma, then the email Ex.OP1/11 and Ex.OP-1 are correct and the amount has been credited in the correct account and there is no mis-match in the name of the account holder, but if the same is in the name of Helynad Sangam, then there is clearly mis-match of the name of the account holder. The onus rame of thei was upon the OP No.2 to clarify this thing, but the OP No.2 has failed to clarify nor has filed on record any document to support these emails and to prove that there is no mis-match in the name of the account holder. This is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OP No.2. Once the consumer has given the information that the amount has been wrongly deposited in the account of Helynad Sangam through OP No.1, then it was the duty of the OP No.2 to clarify and verify if the information was wrong, then the action should have been taken by the OP No.2 against the complainant and not to sit over the matter by simply saying that the there is no mis-match in the account. Admittedly, there is no mis-match in the account number, but from the documents produced on record by the parties, there is clear mis-match in the name of the account holder. The bank cannot credit the amount in the account having different name unless and until they get the same verified from the person who deposits the same by way of NEFT. Thus, this is unfair trade practice by not coming to Commission with clean hands and by not making the picture clear and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed qua OP No.2 and OP No.2 is directed to remit the amount of Rs.72,000/- in the account of the complainant having account No.755400285000005 with the OP No.1. Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.12,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
06.01.2023 Member Member President
