This is an application u/s. 12 of C.P. Act filed by petitioner Parijat Roy praying for an order for refunding of Rs. 56000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 30000/- and Rs. 100000/- for mental harassment and agony against O.P. 1 to 2 for their non-compliance to refund the amount of Rs. 56000/-.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bona fide customer of State Bank of India, Harishchandrapur Branch and he has Savings A/c. No. 30578257489.
On 21.12.2013 petitioner sent Rs.56000/- to one Paritosh Bose who has Savings A/c No. 4163101000325 in Canara Bank Durgapur, SME Branch through RTG and he filled up the papers for effecting the RTGS but inadvertently the numerical number of the Savings Account of Paritosh Bose wrongly written as 4136101000325 instead of A/c No. 4163101000325 in the application form RTGS remittance SBI, Harishchandrapur Branch. He mentioned the IFC Code Number of Canara Bank properly.
The petitioner came to know that the said amount was not reached in the account of Paritosh Bose of Durgapur on 24.12.2013 and immediately requested the Branch Manager of Harishchandrapur Branch to stop the payment. The Manager intimated the same to the Canara Bank, Durgapur SME Branch.
The petitioner came to know that the said amount of Rs.56000/- was deposited in the name of Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Canara Bank of Kalapahar Branch in the state of Orissa as per the account number which was written by the petitioner Parijat Roy in the RTG Form and the cheque.
The petitioner also intimated the fact to the DGM, SBI, Siliguri Chairman of SBI and also the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneshwar but in vain. So he filed this case before this Forum claiming refund of Rs.56000/- from State Bank of India, Harischandrapur Branch and from Canara Bank of Durgapur SME Branch along with harassment cost of Rs.100000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 30000/-.
O.P. 1 to O.P.2 contested the case filing separate written version stating that the allegations are vague, unjustified and not supported by law and hence the suit is not maintainable according to law. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. banks
On the basis of the same following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relieves as prayed for?
:DECISION WITH REASONS:
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
In support of his claim the petitioner appeared as P.W.-1 and filed documents marked as Ext.1- to Ext.-8. Ext.-1, Application for RTGS remittance of State Bank of India, Harishchandrapur Branch dt. 21.12.2013.
Counterfoil of State Bank of India, Harishchandrapur Branch. Remitting Customer’s Detail, Ext-2.,Reply received by the petitioner through on
27.01.2014. Ext-4, Mail sent to Parijat Roy from State Bank of India on 31.01.2014. Ext-5, Letter sent to Pramod Kumar Singh Sr. Manager, Canara Bank from State Bank, Global IT Centre. Ext.-6, Correspondence Letters between the Bank for remittance. Ext-7, Letter to the Manager, Canara Bank by the petitioner dt. 12.02.2014. Ext.-8 Letter of Banking Ombudsman, RBI 22.04.2014.
The O.P. Nos.1 and 2 examined one witness each as DW-1 and another witness as DW2 and filed document i.e. Application Form for RTG’s remittance which is marked Ext.-A along with the rules noted in the reverse page of Ext.-A i.e. Ext.-1.
The petitioner PW-1 stated in his evidence submitted that petitioner is a bona fide customer of State Bank of India, Harishchandrapur Branch and he has Savings A/c. No. 30578257489. The witness also corroborated his plaint case.
From the evidence it is also reveals that after knowing fully well the terms and condition he filled up Ext.-1 and the cheque and he gone through the condition for transfer which was mentioned in the reverse side of Ext. –A. This petitioner did not file the writing of the reverse page of Ext.-1 but we are getting from the Ext.-A the terms and condition written in Ext. –A like this.
- All payment instructions should be carefully checked by the remitter. As
Crediting the proceeds of the remittance is based on the beneficiary’s account number the name of the other bank and its branch. SBI shall not be responsible if these particulars are provided corrected by the remitter.
- Application/ Message received after the business hours will be sent on the immediate next working day.
- SBI shall not be responsible for any delay in processing of the payment due to RBI RTGS system not being available / failure of internal Communication system at the recipient bank/branch/incorrect information provided by the remitter / Any incorrect credit accorded by the recipient Bank / branch due to incorrect information provided by the remitter.
- (i) Remitting Branch shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising out or resulting from delay in transportation delivery or non-delivery of electronic message or any mistake, omission or error in transmission or delivery thereof or in encrypting /decrypting the messages for any cause whatsoever or from misinterpretation when received or for the action of the destination bank or for any act beyond the control of State Bank of India.
ii) If the recipient branch is closed for any reason, the account shall be credited on the immediate next working day.
iii) Bank is free to recover charges in respect of remittances returned on account of faulty / inadequate information.
5) I / we have fully read the terms and conditions of the RTGS remittance and shall abide by the same.
On 21.12.2013 Petitioner, (P.W.-1) sent Rs.56000/- to one Paritosh Bose who has Savings A/c No. 4163101000325 in Canara Bank Durgapur, SME Branch through RTG and he filled up the papers for effecting the RTGS but inadvertently the numerical number of the Savings Account of Paritosh Bose wrongly written as 4136101000325 instead of A/c No. 4163101000325 in the application form RTGS remittance SBI, Harishchandrapur Branch. He mentioned the IFC Code Number of Canara Bank properly.
This witness P.W. 1 admitted in his evidence that after knowing all the rules he filled up the RTG application form and he came to know his wrongful act on 24.12.2013. The rules which were given in the back side of Ext. –A clearly speaks that liability depends upon the petitioner but not on the employees of the bank. Condition 1 “All payment ……..proceed to remittance is based on the beneficiary’s account number, the name of the other bank and its branch, SBI shall not be responsible if this particulars are not provided correctly by the remitter.” Condition III “SBI shall not be responsible ………………….due to incorrect information provided by the remitter.
The petitioner came to know that the said amount was not reached in the account of Paritosh Bose of Durgapur on 24.12.2013 and immediately requested the Branch Manager of Harishchandrapur Branch to stop the payment. The Manager intimated the same to the Canara Bank, Durgapur SME Branch.
The petitioner came to know that the said amount of Rs.56000/- was deposited/credited in the name of Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Canara Bank of Kalapahar Branch in the state of Orissa as per the account number which was written by the petitioner Parijat Roy in the RTG Form and the cheque.
All these rules speaks the liability upon the remitter and not the employees of the bank.
The petitioner also intimated the fact to the DGM, SBI, Siliguri Chairman of SBI and also the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneshwar but in vain.
Petitioner himself stated on dock that he filled up the application form i.e. Ext.-1/ Ext.-A after knowing the terms and condition which was written in the back side of the Ext.-A i.e. application for RTG remittance and he also admitted in his evidence that he wrongly filled up the account number of the
beneficiary Paritosh Bose in the application form on 21.12.2013 in which he sent Rs. 56000/-. He admits that the IFC Code Number of the beneficiary Paritosh Bose was rightly written.
It is also established that the petitioner also mentioned the same wrong A/c No. in the cheque book and this wrong entry of the account number by the petitioner in his cheque dt. 21.12.2013 deposited for RTG in the Branch of Harishchandrapur, SBI and the said transaction took place by the modern system of the electronic instrument and the man has no control if the number is wrongly mentioned in the document. The petitioner came to know the wrong entry in the cheque and the application for RTG remittance on 24.12.2013 and the transaction took place immediately on 21.12.2013 when the petitioner filed the application for RTG at Harishchandrapur, SBI Branch. It is also evident from the evidence that the account number is a main factor for sending the money and if it was done wrongly by the petitioner and not by the employee of the bank.
It is evident from the evidence that on 24.12.2013 just after receiving the application of the petitioner State Bank of India Harishchandrapur Branch informed the Branch Manager Canara Bank not to disburse the amount. But it is evident from the evidence that due to wrong account number the amount was credited in the name of one Sanjay Kr. Sau at Kalapahar, Orissa Canara Bank.
It is a fact that the petitioner sent letters to the high officials of the Banking Authority and they also replied for taking their steps but we this Forum have to consider whether there is any negligence or latches on the part of the Bank Authority.
After scrutinize the evidence on record of the witnesses it is crystal clear that the modern science and technology adopted by all these institutions and we are very much benefitted by this technology. The petitioner himself is a wrong doer and he committed the mistake by not proving the real account number.
Here in this case the petitioner committed the wrong and the negligence is on his part and the Bank Authority is not liable in this case and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. 1, State Bank of India.
O.P. No.2, Canara Bank categorically stated that the account number is the main factor for the RTG.
For the above reasons and discussions we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
In the result, the case fails
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C Case No. 46/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.Ps without cost.
