Presented by: -
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Complaint Case No. 446/2018
This case has been filed by the complainant against the OPs for passing direction to the OPs to pay damages / compensation to the tune of Rs. 15, 37, 145/- to the complainant alongwith other reliefs.
Case of the complainant - The case of the complainant which is deciphered from the petition of complaint in bird’s eye view is that the complainant is a proprietor of a proprietorship business under name and style M/S ‘Krishna Entertainment’ having its office at 212, Shibpur Road , P.S. Shibpur, Dist. Howrah, PIN – 711 102 and the OP NOs. 1 & 2 are reputed Banks who provide several financial service in various forms like NEFT, RTGS etc. to the customers and complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 and the complainant has his A/C in the OP No.1 Bank. It is stated that on 05.10.2018 the complainant went to OP No. 1 Bank expressed his intention to transfer an amount from his business A/C into the A/C of business client with the bank of the OP No. 2 which is lying in the name of Siti Network Ltd.. It is pointed out that the OP No. 1 transferred an Application Form for fund transfer under RTGS, NEFT consisting of several space for providing details of the remitter as well as details of the beneficiary and accordingly the complainant filled up the said application form and deposited with the banker (OP No.1) and subsequently after checking all details, the Bank Officer of OP No. 1 sent the money to the above noted beneficiary A/C by taking required fees thereof. It is stated that the complainant on the very date after returning home noticed that the A/C No. of the receiver / business client of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned in the receipt of the said payment filled up by the complainant and instantly the complainant went to the OP No. 1 requested to retrieve the said amount from the wrong A/C in where the amount of the complainant has been sent but the Officer of the OP No. 1 flatly refused to help the complainant rather advised the complainant to go to the receiver Bank ( OP No. 2) for doing necessary steps and accordingly the complainant went to the OP No. 2 Bank Authority and requested them to resend the said amount to the complainant’s A/C as it was wrongly made but the Officer of the OP No. 2 finally refused to take any measures regarding the retrieval of the said amount of the complainant and the complainant was totally astonished. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter again and again went to both OPs for clarifying the situation but the efforts of the complainant went in vein in spite of giving all details of the A/C Holder of receiver OP No. 1 sent the amount to the complainant to any other A/C and all officers of OPs abused the complainant with filthy language and after the aforesaid incident the complainant finding no other alternative had given a letters on 31.10.2018 to the OP No. 1 but no action has yet been taken by the OP No. 1 and another intimation was sent on 12.11.2018 to the OP No. 1 through e-mail but all the efforts of the complainant went in vein . It is further alleged that the complainant is a business man and he always uses online money transfer to his several business clients periodically and it is high responsibility of the Bank Authority to send money to the receivers A/C after thorough checking. It is also alleged that Op No. 1 transferred the aforesaid amount of the complainant to a stranger A/C without checking the money of the beneficiary and details of such A/C Holders just a gross negligence on the part of the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 also refused to take any measures to that effect as the said money has been transferred in the name of the another person other than real A/C Holder resulting which a severe mental agony to the complainant . It is submitted that as a result of a gross negligence on the part of the OPs, the complainant felt very insecurity at the time of online payment in the present time and the OPs also have not made any settlement of the above disputes and also liable for gross negligence and deficiency of service . According to the case of the complainant the loss suffered by the complainant as a result of a gross negligence by the OPs is huge and it is very difficult to realize the same , however the complainant finding no other alternative has instituted this case as per prayer of the complaint petition.
Defence Case - OP No. 1 Central Bank of India Authority in spite of receiving notice has neither appeared in this case nor filed any W/V . However OP No. 2 after receiving the notice appeared in this case and filed W/V and denied each and every allegations of the complainant . The specific case of the OP No. 2 is that the OP No. 2 has no relationship with the complainant and they also have no role to play in execution of the said RTGS. It is stated that the complaint case is not maintainable against the OP No. 2 and the complainant is not a consumer under the OP No. 2 and so this case is liable to be dismissed.
Points of consideration
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties this District Commission for the purpose of deciding the fate of this case and also for arriving at just and proper decision is going to adopt the following points of consideration :-
- Is this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law?
- Is the complainant consumer under the OPs or not?
- Has the complainant any cause of action for filing of this case or not?
- Whether this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get a decree directing the OPs to pay damages / compensation of Rs. 1,37,145/- alongwith other reliefs or not?
- To what other relief / reliefs is the complainant entitled to get in this case ?
Evidence on record
The complainant in order to prove this case has filed evidence on affidavit and OP No. 2 has filed interrogatories against the said evidence on affidavit of complainant but complainant has not given any reply against the said interrogatories. The OP No. 2 has filed any evidence but no interrogatories has been filed against the said evidence on affidavit of Op No. 2
Argument highlighted by both parties
In course of argument the complainant & OPs has filed Brief Notes of Argument, in addition to filing of Brief Notes of Argument the complainant side and OPs also have highlighted verbal argument.
Decision with reasons
All the above noted points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly as because the questions involved in these points of consideration are interlinked and / or interconnected with one another.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in connection with the above noted points of consideration and also for proper and complete adjudication of this case , there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the material of this case record and there is also urgency for elaborate scanning of the evidence on record.
After going through the material of this case record it is revealed that the complainant is not a customer and / or A/C Holder under OP No. 2 and so there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between complainant and OP No. 2. In other wards it can be said that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP No. 2 and for that reason this case is not maintainable against OP No. 2. However, as the complainant has his A/C in the OP No. 1 Bank, it is to be considered that complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1.
After going through the material of this case record this District Commission finds that it is the case of the complainant that he has approached his banker i.e. OP No. 1 for executing one RTGS and duly executed the Application form but subsequently the complainant discovered / recovered that the details provided in the said RTGS Application Form is wrong. In this regard, it is very important to note that the complainant himself has provided wrong No. in the Application Form of NEFT. Moreover, the transfer was made through the OP No. 1 in which the OP No. 2 has no role to play. It is reflected from the annexed document which have been filed by the OPs that after receipt of the communication the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 Bank Authority have duly marked hold on available amount of the subject A/C and duly updated the same to the OP No. 1. After going through the material of this case record it is also reflected that the complainant informed the Bank about the wrong entry in the Application form of NEFT on 30.10.2018 which is after 25 days of debiting the amount from the client’s A/C as such the matter is unintentionally delayed. In this regard, it is important to note that since the complainant requested the OP No.1 Bank Authority on 30.10.2018 after 25 days from debiting the amount, there is no mistake on the part of the OP No. 1. The annexed documents which have been filed by the OP No. 1 is going to reveal that the OP No. 1 tried to recover the said money from OP No. 2 but it is not yet recover as the OP No. 2 IDBI Bank failed to recover the said amount from the A/C Holder being A/C No. 1084102000001229.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has failed to make out any case of negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2.
Under this position this District Commission has no other alternative but to decide all the above noted points of consideration against the complainant and to dismiss this case.
In the result , it is accordingly,
ORDERED
That this Complaint Case being No. 446/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order is passed as to cost.
The parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment as early as possible.
Let this judgment be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission immediately.
Dictated & corrected by me
President
