Orissa

Cuttak

CC/1/2019

Samarendra Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B Mishra

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.01/2019

Samarendra Nayak,

S/O:Rasananda Nayak,

At:B/39,Sector-9,CDA,

P.O:Markatnagar,P.S:Bidanasi,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                              ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

State Bank of India, represent by

Branch Manager,

Bidanasi Branch,C.D.A,Sector-6,

Dist:Cuttack....Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.01.2019

Date of Order:  27.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.               :            Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                         

            Case of the complainant in short is that he had an account bearing No.30107066048 in the S.B.I Bidanasi Branch of Cuttack.  On 11.12.17 he had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in Account No.1199000101144627 of Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd,Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar by means of RTGS from his said account at Bidanasi Branch of SBI vide cheque no.640831.  Again he had deposited an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in the same account number on 15.12.17 through cheque from his said SBI account.    Subsequently, he could know that the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- had not been credited to the intended account in the Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar, rather, those had been credited to an account belonging to one Pravadevi,Bairagi Branch,Bihar.  When he tried to enquire about the same from the S.B.I,Bidanasi Branch,Cuttack, he could not get any positive response.  He again had transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd, bearing A/C. No.0295003800000039 of Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar with IFSC Code PUNB0413200 on 3.6.18 and 5.7.18 respectively but the said amounts were remitted back to his account as the said account number was not present in Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar.  The complainant sought for clarification from the Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar regarding the RTGS transactions but could not succeed in getting the details due to “exemption of disclosure”.  The complainant thereby had to approach the Banking Ombudsman through his letter dt.29.7.18 and through R.T.I.  The complainant in his complaint petition has also mentioned that according to the S.B.I guidelines, the remitter of money has to provide details of the amount to be remitted, account number to be credited, name of the beneficiary bank, name of the beneficiary customer, sender to receiver information, IFSC Code of the receiving branch and mobile number of the remitter for a successful NEFT transaction.  Accordingly the complainant had provided all the necessary details as required seeking dealership of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. but the amount was credited to another account holder namely  Pravadevi,Bairagi Branch,Bihar without being credited to the Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar.  The complainant has further averred in his complaint petition that the whole system is an internet generated operation; even the IFSC code will automatically be updated once the location, bank and branch are provided to the remitting bank.  Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that the S.B.I Bidanasi Branch had resorted to malifide practices and has embezzled his money for which the complainant had sustained financial loss due to the unfair trade practice of the O.P.  Thus the complainant has filed this case seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- from the O.P, an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income and also for compensation, further, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment, and has demanded to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has further prayed for any other relief as found fit and proper.

            In order to support his case the complainant has filed copies of certain documents.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P has contested this case and has filed written version.  As per the written version of the O.P, the case as filed by the complainant is not maintainable, bad for non-joinder of necessary party and thus is liable to be rejected.  According to the written version of the O.P., the bank is only concerned with the account number and the IFSC code as regards to any RTGS/NEFT transaction.  Thus they have not practised any unfair trade nor there any deficiency in service on their part.  The O.P admits about the account of the complainant at Bidanasi Branch of S.B.I and about the NEFT/RTGS transaction but according to the O.P, there was no deficiency in service nor had they practised any unfair trade since because as per the RTGS/NEFT transaction, the remitter bank is concerned only with the account number and the IFSC code of the remitting branch and nothing else.  Thus, it is prayed by the O.P to dismiss the complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by either parties to this case, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case as filed is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of O.P?

            iii.        Whether the O.P had adopted any unfair trade practice?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issues No.2 & 3.

            For the sake of convenience issues no.2 & 3 are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            After analysing the averments as made out in the complaint petition of the complainant and the averments as made by the O.P in the written version, perusing the copies of documents as available and so also after going through the guidelines of the banking transactions regarding RTGS/NEFT transaction, it is noticed that any such transaction is made through the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and as averred by the O.P  in the written version, the remitter bank is only  concerned with the account number and the IFSC code to which the customer intends to send his money.  If the account number is verified to be correct and so also the IFSC code, the money is remitted accordingly to the said account holder.  So, as noticed in the present case the first two transactions of the complainant which are alleged to have been deposited in favour one Pravadevi of Bairagi Branch,Bihar instead of being sent to Punjab National Bank,Laksar,Haridwar cannot be said to be the fault of the O.P.  It is because, the O.P has verified the account as provided by the remitter as well as the IFSC Code.  The O.P has filed copy of the document reflecting the A/c number as provided by the complainant to have been entered in the computer of the O.P while enabling the RTGS/NEFT of the complainant.  The said account number in the said document of the O.P as provided when tallied with that as provided by the complainant in his bank counterfoil filled up by him, it is noticed that the same tallies identically and is the same account number that which was provided by the complainant to the O.P bank.  In the subsequent two transactions, the account could not be located in the intended PNB Branch at Haridwar for which the money was remitted back to the account of the remitter/complainant.  Thus, it cannot be said here in this case that the O.P had any deficiency in service towards the customer/complainant and that the O.P had practised unfair trade.  Thus, these two pertinent issues are answered in favour of the O.P in this case.

Issues No.1 & 4.

            From the above discussions, it can well be said here that the case as filed by the complainant is never maintainable and he is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27^th  day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member.