Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/228/2019

Akash Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Co-op Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Mann

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.228 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution: 4.06.2019                                                              

                                                   Date of decision:22.02.2022.

                         

Akash Garg son of Sh.Jang Bahadur resident of ward No.10, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.                                       …Complainant.

                        Versus

Corporation Bank Branch at Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.                                       ….Opposite party.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Devender Mann Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Y.R.Bansal Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Akash Garg against Corporation Bank.-Opposite Party.

 

2.             In the complaint it is stated that the complainant is having an account No.5202911006075415 with the OP bank. It is stated that on 10.10.2018 the complainant for paying the Ukraine University fee of his  daughter namely Shreya Garg and for that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.2716/- on account of Rs.2,23,560/- from the account of the complainant.  The OP wrongly transferred the fee amount in Intermediary account of Citibank N.A., New York, NY USA instead of beneficiary account i.e. SWIFT-EXBS UA UX JOINT STOCK COMPAMNY “THE  STATE EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF UKRAINE”  and due to that the fee amount transferred by the OP bank  returned back partly in the account of the complainant and due to defect in services provided by the OP the complainant had suffered loss and the complainant also suffered mental agony and pain. The complainant contacted the OP so many times but the OP did not co-operate the complainant properly and always post poned the matter on one pretext or the others.  The complainant has sent a legal notice to the OP 0on 18.2.2019 through his counsel  and same notice was  received by the OP but the failed to give any reply to the notice which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that OP be directed to pay the amount of the complainant alongwith interest and compensation etc.

 

3.             Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that address of the bank was given by the complainant to the OP and on the said given address amount has been sent by the bank.  It is also submitted that only the legal charges were taken from the complainant regarding the payment of the University fee. It is submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint with the OP. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint. It is also submitted that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to  Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed its evidence.

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is having an account No.5202911006075415 with the OP bank. As per the case of the complainant, on 10.10.2018 the complainant for paying the Ukraine University fee of his  daughter namely Shreya Garg and for that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.2716/- on account of Rs.2,23,560/- from the account of the complainant.  The OP wrongly transferred the fee amount in Intermediary account of Citibank N.A., New York, NY USA instead of beneficiary account i.e. SWIFT-EXBS UA UX JOINT STOCK COMPAMNY “THE  STATE EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF UKRAINE”  and due to that the fee amount transferred by the OP bank  returned back partly in the account of the complainant and due to defect in services provided by the OP the complainant had suffered loss and the complainant also suffered mental agony and pain. etc.

 

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the submissions made in the complaint has argued that the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              address of the bank was given by the complainant to the OP and on the said given address amount has been sent by the bank.  It is also submitted that only the legal charges were taken from the complainant regarding the payment of the University fee. It is submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint with the OP. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint.

 

9.             On perusal of the statement of account of the complainant, it is clear that the amount of  Rs.2,23,560.00 was paid by the complainant to the OP on 10.10.2018 and the said  amount of Rs.2,11,574/- was refunded by the OP to the complainant only on 15.11.2018 and the Ops deducted the charges of Rs.14,702/-.  Perusal of the document Ex.C-2 shows that the amount of Rs.2,23,560.00 was to be sent by the OP-bank  in the beneficiary account No.25304000000135 of Kharkov National Medical University, 4, Nauky avenue Kharkiv 61022 Ukraine but  the Ops wrongly sent the said amount in the account of Citibank N.A., New York, NY USA which is fault on the part of the OP bank. Despite sending the amount to a wrong account, the OP too has deducted the amount of Rs.14702/- as bank charges which is   deficiency in services on the part of the OP bank. Therefore, the OP-bank is liable to refund the amount of Rs.14702/- to the complainant Besides, this the complainant is also entitled to compensation for the deficiency in services on the part of the OP-bank. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

 

10.            For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.14702/- to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of this order, till its actual realization. Besides this, the complainant shall also be entitled to  a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment  caused to the complainant and  Rs.5000’- for the litigation expenses. The OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated 22.02.2022.                                               President.

 

                                Member             Member.