Date of Filing 16.10.2023

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 07.03.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL.,                                                                              ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                            ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.107/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 07^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

 Mr.P.Selvam, S/o.Palani,

No.10, 2^nd Cross Street,

Damodharan Nagar,

Thiruninravoor 602 024.                                                                         ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.Canara Bank,

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    Krishnapuram Main Road,

    Thiruninravoor 602 024.

2.City Union Bank,

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    Kulathur Branch,

    No.309/3B Trichy Main Road,

    Kulathur 622 202,

    Podukottai District.                                                                          ….opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                       : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                              :  Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                             : Exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 28.02.2024 in the presence of Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, counsel for the complainant and Mr.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties along with a prayer to refund the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with 12 percent interest from 12.09.2022 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant with litigation cost.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the wrong transfer of NEFT amount the present complaint was filed. The complainant alleged that instead of writing the beneficiarys account number as 500101013000500 due to an mistaken entry by the complainant the fund was transferred to an unknown person in Kulathur Branch of the City Union Bank in Pudukottai District and the amount was also withdrawn by the 1^st opposite party.  On enquiry the complainant came to know about the transfer and a complaint was filed before the Banking Ombudsman on 07.11.2022.  However the complaint was closed stating that the wrong beneficiary had given post dated cheque for the amount and agreed to settle the amount.  However till the filing of the complaint the amount and also the post dated cheque did not reach the complainant and hence aggrieved the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with 12 percent interest from 12.09.2022 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant with litigation cost.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

3. The 1^st opposite party filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint contending inter alia that reliance would be made only on account number for the purpose of affording credit transactions.  The IFSC code and the name of Branch as filled by the complainant tallies. The amount got credited to the wrong account only due to the negligence of the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party. On a complaint by the complainant the opposite party immediately sent an email to City Union Bank,  Pudhukottai Branch reporting the wrong credit and to make arrangements to recover the same to the correct beneficiary. The City Union Bank, Pudhukottai Branch also had taken necessary steps.  However, the wrong beneficiary has withdrawn the amount.  Thus stating that they are not responsible for the wrong credit they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A5 were submitted. On the side of 1^st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were submitted. Though one Mr.M.V.Seshechari, Advocate filed vakalath for 2^nd opposite party he did not appear before this commission to file any written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 18.12.2023 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the alleged deficiency in service and negligence against the opposite party by the complainant has been satisfactorily proved by the complainant by admissible evidence

2)    If so to what relief the complainant is entitled

Point No.1&2:-

5. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and perused the documents and pleadings submitted by them.

6. The complaint registered with Police dated 21.09.2022 was filed by the complainant in proof of the wrong credit.  Further the closure intimation of the complaint by the Banking Ombudsman was filed as Ex.A3.  In Ex.A4 it has been stated by the Ombudsman that as the 1^st opposite party/Canara Bank replied that they have taken up the issue with the 2^nd opposite party for reversing the wrongly transferred amount and the customer had given a post dated cheque and assured to repay the wrong credit amount the complaint was closed. However, it is the case of the complainant that the said post dated cheque was not handed over to him.  Thus citing the RBI circular dated 14.10.2020 it is argued that the destination banks are limited to affords credit to beneficiaries account based on the details furnished by the remitter.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that if the IFSC code or account number did not tally the amount would be returned to the complainant but in the present case as both tallied the amount got credited to the wrong person.  He denied that no complaint was made to them as alleged by the complainant.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

8. Both the parties did not dispute the wrong transfer of NEFT amount and the complainant admits that he wrongly entered the account number of the beneficiary.  Further it is also seen that on complaint made to the Banking Ombudsman was closed stating that the issuing Bank and beneficiary Bank had taken efforts to reverse the amount.  It was also stated that the beneficiary Bank had obtained post dated cheque from that customer and that the amount would be reversed on receipt of credit in the account.  However, as no credit was made by the person who had withdrawn the amount on wrong credit, the complainant was put in lurch and left without any remedy.

9. The responsibility to provide correct in puts in the payment instructions, particularly the beneficiary Account Number Information, rests with the remitter/originator, as per the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the circular provided under RBI/2010-11/235 DPSS (CO) EPPD No. / 863 / 04.03.01 / 2010-11, dt October 14, 2010

4. Being essentially credit-push in nature, responsibility for accurate in put and successful credit lies with the remitting customers and the originating banks. The role of destination banks is limited to affording credit to beneficiarys account based on details furnished by the remitter / originating bank. In order to handle surging volumes in a limited time window, some banks use name matching software, while a few others employ a risk-based approach based on the nature and value

5.  keeping in view the foregoing, in the RTGS / NEFT / NECS / ECS Credit products, it has since been decided as under

1. Responsibility to provide correct in puts in the payment instructions, particularly the beneficiary account number information, rests with the remitter / originator. While the beneficiarys name shall be compulsorily mentioned in the instruction request, and carried as part of the funds transfer message, reliance will be only on the account number for the purpose of affording credit. This is applicable both for transaction requests emanating at branches and those originated through the online / internet delivery channel. The name field in the message formats will, however, be a parameter to be used by the destination bank based on risk perception and / or use for post-credit checking or otherwise.

As per the said clause the reliance would be only on the account number mentioned for the purpose of affording credit.   Further under clause 8 it has been found as follows

8. The above notwithstanding, in cases where it is found that credit has been afforded to a wrong account, banks need to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credits and set right the mistake and / or return the transaction to the originating bank. This particularly needs to function very efficiently and pro-actively till such time customers are comfortable with the new arrangements.

10. Therefore as per RBI directions, the final and sole responsibility of cross checking the account number, Name of the account holder, amount and every other detail lies with the remitter.  Also when the wrong transaction was reported by the complainant, it was found that both the banks (remitter and beneficiary) had taken quick redressal and also had obtained a cheque for the amount from the wrong beneficiary.  As the banks could only act as facilitators without any pecuniary liability, this commission is of the view that both Banks acted according to the established practice and Rules.

11. In such circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of banks and hence no liability could be fastened upon them. Further the complainant also failed to implead the wrongful beneficiary to take any steps and to implicate him. Therefore only remedy available to the complainant is to realize the amount by opting any criminal or civil action against the wrongful beneficiary.

12. It is represented by the complainant that the cheque was not handed over to him enabling him to take any action against the wrongful beneficiary.  Therefore in the interest of justice, we direct the opposite parties to hand over the cheque within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist  transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 07^th day of March 2024.

     Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                            

 MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

   Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT