Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/57/2019

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Madan Lal Adv.

27 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	57 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	27.03.2019

 

Amar Singh son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh R/o V & PO Sarsini, Tehsil Derabasi, District Mohali.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SCO No.36, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

2.  General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU), Chandigarh.

 

...Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 against  order dated 06.02.2019 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh  in Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2018.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Madan Lal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 06.02.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.144 of 2018 filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that he is having savings bank account No.31602711670 with Opposite Party No.1 - State Bank of India. It was stated that on 04.10.2016, a sum of Rs.9 Lakhs were transferred from his account to one Sh. Amar Singh without his knowledge and authorization and despite his repeated requests, the said fault was not rectified by Opposite Party No.1-Bank.  It was further stated that that the complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.01.2018 upon Opposite Party No.1 to settle his grievance by transferring back the said amount of Rs.9 Lakhs alongwith interest 18% p.a. but to no avail. Hence, complaint was filed before the Forum.

3.             Opposite Party No.1 – State Bank of India, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant is maintaining savings bank A/c No.31602711670 in the name of Amar Singh (Jr. Assistant) son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh with Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh and another A/c No.30496315467 is being maintained in the name of Amar Singh, Inspector Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh and Mrs. Surinder Kaur and both the accounts are with Opposite Party No.1.  It was further stated that Mr. Amar Singh, Inspector was sanctioned non-refundable withdrawal amount of Rs.9 Lakhs out of his GPF A/c No.CH-Trans-965 and the said sanction was accorded under Rule 13.29(D) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II with Chandigarh Administration letter No.HIII(2)-2000/23279 dated 23.11.2000 which was conveyed to Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector vide endorsement dated 07.09.2016. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.9 Lakhs was to be credited in the A/c No. 30496315467 of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector but inadvertently the same was transferred to A/c No.31602711670 of Sh.Amar Singh, Junior Assistant and when the said mistake was detected, A/c No.31602711670 of Sh. Amar Singh, Junior Assistant was freezed and clarification was sought from Opposite Party No.2 and on clarification vide letter dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure R-2), it was found that the amount of Rs.9 Lakhs was wrongly transferred in A/c No.31602711670 of Sh. Amar Singh, Junior Assistant instead of A/c No. 30496315467 of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector. It has further been pleaded that subsequently Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure R-3) to Opposite Party No.1 requesting to unlock/unfreeze A/c No.31602711670 of Sh. Amar Singh, Junior Assistant and transfer the amount of Rs.9 Lakhs to A/c No. 30496315467 of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector to whom the money actually belonged. It was further stated that being a bona fide mistake, the Bank got every right to rectify the mistake and credit the amount to rightful beneficiary and the complainant was simply trying to grab the money, which belonged to someone else of his identical name and unnecessarily wasting the precious time of the Court. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1 nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, stated that the complainant was working as Junior Assistant in its office, retired as such on 27.10.2012 and his pension is being credited in his savings A/c No.31602711670 maintained with Opposite Party No.1.  It was further stated that another person namely Amar Singh son of Sh. Balwant Singh is working as Inspector in its office who applied for grant of non-refundable GPF Advance of Rs.9 lacs on 26.08.2016 for the purpose of marriage of his daughter and accordingly, the approval was accorded for sanctioning the said amount in his favour.  It was further stated that a bill was prepared on 14.09.2016 in his favour along with his two other employees namely Amrik Singh and Gurdev Singh and the account number in respect of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector was wrongly mentioned as a/c No.31602711670  instead of a/c No.30496315467 and thereafter the said bill was sent to the Treasury Office for releasing the sanctioned amount of Rs. 9 Lakhs in his account and, therefore, the said amount was credited into the account number as mentioned in the bill.  It was further stated that the said account belonged to the complainant who shares the same name i.e. Amar Singh with the inspector who had applied for the GPF advance. It was further stated that on verification, it came to the notice that inadvertently, the amount was wrongly credited in the account of the complainant in place of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector who had applied for GPF non-refundable advance and as such, the matter was taken up with Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 26.09.2016 for withholding the amount of a/c No.31602711670 of Sh. Amar Singh, Junior Assistant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was informed that the said amount was wrongly transferred in the name of the complainant instead of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector.  It was further stated that on the basis of the said request, the Bank transferred the amount of Rs.9 Lakhs to A/c No.30496315467 of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector, who was actually entitled for the said amount. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The complainant filed rejoinder, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and controverted those, contained in written version of the opposite parties.

6.            The parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, dismissed the complaint as referred to above.

7.             Challenge to the order passed by the Forum has been laid on the ground that the Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant without appreciating the evidence on record and without calling for the documents by which the amount, in question, was credited in the account of the appellant/complainant. It was further submitted that the procedures that were required to be observed in connection with making of the decision were not observed. It was further submitted that the decision rendered by the Forum was otherwise contrary to the law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Vs. Attar-Ul-Nissa & Others, AIR 1967 SC 540. It was further stated that the Forum did not exercise judicious discretion in passing the impugned order. It was further submitted that to extend favour to Opposite Party No.1, the Forum suo-motto directed Opposite Party No.1 to implead Opposite Party No.2, which was primarily the prerogative of the complainant to implead it or not.  Lastly, it was prayed that appeal be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Forum be set aside.

8.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

9.             So far as the plea qua the Forum suo-motto directing Opposite Party No.1 to implead Opposite Party No.2 – General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh as an opposite party to the complaint to extend benefit to Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, the same is totally wrong and inappropriate, which goes against the integrity of judicial system. It may be stated here that such kind of remarks should not be made by any party litigating before the Court of law. Perusal of record shows that a specific application was moved by Opposite Party No.1 for impleading Opposite Party No.2 before the Forum, which was contested by the appellant/complainant. It was only after the Forum opined that for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute, the said application was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2018 and General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh was impleaded as Opposite Party No.2. We are of the opinion that impleadment of Opposite Party No.2 was must and necessary to settle the dispute and bring on record the true facts. As such, the ground raised by the appellant/complainant stands rejected being without any force. 

10.           On merits, it is not in dispute that the appellant/ complainant, namely, Amar Singh and another Amar Singh, in whose name sanction of non-refundable GPF Advance was accorded by Opposite Party No.2, were the employees of Opposite Party No.2 - General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh and have been working in the capacity of Junior Assistant and Inspector in the said department. It is evident on record that vide order (Annexure R-1), Opposite Party No.2 - Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, sanctioned an amount of Rs.9 Lakhs in favour of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector on account of non-refundable GPF advance amount out of his GPF Fund Account No.CH-Trans-965 for the marriage of his daughter. Admittedly, the said amount, which was to be credited in the account of Amar Singh, Inspector bearing Account No.30496315467, was wrongly credited in the account of the complainant bearing Account No.31602711670. This mistake occurred due to similarity between the names of both the complainant, namely, Amar Singh working as Jr. Assistant and another employee, namely, Amar Singh, Inspector in the same department of Opposite Party No.2. The money wrongly credited in the account of the complainant was to be actually credited in the account of Amar Singh, Inspector. Qua the above mistake, Opposite Party No.2 sent letter/clarification dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure R-2/R-6) to Opposite Party No.1 which is extracted hereunder:-

          “An amount of Rs.9,00,00/- has been wrongly transferred on account of Sh. Amar Singh, Bank Account No.31602711670 instead of bank a/c No. 30496315467 in respect of Amar Singh, Inspector.

          Therefore, it is requested to you may kindly withheld the balance amount”.

11.           Not only above, Opposite Party No.2 further vide letter dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure R-3) requested the Bank – Opposite Party No.1 to unlock/unfreeze a/c No.31602711670 of the complainant and transfer the said amount of Rs.9 Lakhs to the Account of Mr. Amar Singh, Inspector bearing a/c No.30496315467, which was rightly done by Opposite Party No.1.

12.           In the instant case, this was exactly so done by Opposite Party No.1 on receiving instructions/clarification from Opposite Party No.2 that the amount belonged to some other Amar Singh, Inspector and not the complainant who is a Jr. Assistant. Accordingly, on instructions and clarification received, the account of the complainant was debited and the amount of Rs.9 Lakhs was transferred to the account of Amar Singh, Inspector, to whom it actually belonged. Rather, on receiving credit of above amount in his account and that too, which never belonged to him and belonged to some other Amar Singh, Inspector, the appellant/ complainant ought to have immediately informed Opposite Party No.1 - Bank that he received the wrong amount, which was not done. It may be stated here that in cases where it is found that credit has been afforded to a wrong account, Bank can of its own reverse such credits and set right the mistake and/or return the transaction to the originating bank. Banks have the right to place a lien on accounts held by them. In case of default on one payment or wrong crediting of amount in the account, they can put a lien on funds in the account. Once the amount is frozen, the account holder can’t withdraw those funds or use them until the lien is removed. The bank may put a lien on a specific amount in an account or on the entire account. As per the Reserve Bank of India’s guidelines, it is the responsibility of the remitter to provide correct beneficiary account number and details while making payment. Hence, in case of wrong transfer to an account, only the remitter is responsible and liable. The bank or any other person cannot be held liable or responsible. Bank can only act as a facilitator. Here, the appellant/complainant had no locus-standi to claim the aforesaid amount of Rs.9 Lakhs, which never belonged to him and was hard earned money of some other Amar Singh, Inspector. On the other hand, detecting its mistake, Opposite Party No.2 got the amount transferred to the account of right person by writing to Opposite Party No.1-Bank. Immediately, on getting clarification, Opposite Party No.1 marked the lien on the amount wrongly put in the account of the appellant/complainant and needful was done as requested by Opposite Party No.2 by getting the said amount transferred in the correct account. As such, no deficiency in rendering service is attributable to Opposite Party No.1 – Bank.

13.           So far as reliance put forth by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant on Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.’s case (supra), is concerned, it may be stated here that in the said case, the argument raised was that it was not open to the Bank to reverse the entries without the consent of the beneficiary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that where the amount had been paid even though by mistake into the account of a constituent of the bank it was not open to the bank to reverse the entries at the instance of the person paying-in the money into the constituent’s account on the ground that the payer had made a mistake. It may be stated here that the authority cited is not applicable in the instant case, being distinguishable on facts. In that case, there was over-payment by Government to the Bank to the tune of Rs.28,029.25 and that over payment was credited to the account of Sultan Mohd. in the Bank and upon realizing the mistake, after about five years, the Accountant General asked the Bank to reverse the entry and debit the said amount to the account of Sultan Mohd. However, in the instant case, the amount credited itself does not belong to the appellant/complainant and as such, he was not the beneficiary of the said amount. The actual beneficiary of the said amount was Amar Singh, Inspector, to whom the amount actually belonged and the competent authority to get the said mistake rectified was the General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. We, therefore, concur with the findings given by the Forum in Paras 8 and 9 of its order and are of the considered opinion that the respondents/opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in rendering service by debiting Rs.9 Lakhs from the account of the appellant/complainant and then crediting the same to the account of Sh. Amar Singh, Inspector who was the rightful beneficiary of the said amount. 

14.           Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

15.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.

16.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

17.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

18.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

27.03.2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad