Haryana

StateCommission

A/587/2016

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.GOYAL

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.587 of 2016

Date of Institution: 30.06.2016                                                              Date of Decision: 29.07.2016

 

Punjab National Bank, branch office Rai, through its Branch Manager Shri Rajesh Gupta.

…..Appellant.

Versus

 

Deepak Kumar son of Sh.Dayanand r/o H.No.696, Opp.Amit Public School, VPO Harsana Kalan, Sonepat.

2^nd Address Deepak Kumar son of Sh.Dayanand Prop. M/s RD Foods, Flat No.159, GF, Pocket No.07, DDA Flats, Sector 6,Narela, Delhi-39.

                                      …..Respondent.

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Amit Kumar Goyal ,Advocate counsel for                                                appellant.

                              

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by complainant that on 05.08.2014 opposite party (O.P.) wrongly debited Rs.Two lacs from his account in favour of M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal.  Instead of rectifying the mistake O.P. did not allow him to use  Rs. Two lacs from his account.  He repeatedly asked them to do the needful, but, to no use.

2.      O.P.-appellant alleged that as per  request of complainant Rs. Two lacs were sent from his account to M/s Jagdish Satpal of Delhi under RTGS. When the amount was not    received for some time in the account of M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal due to technical problem in payment settlement system Rs. Two lacs were again sent through RTGS as per request of complainant. This lapse was due to technical fault in the system and not the bank.  They transferred amount under RTGS as per request of complainant.  When the matter was taken up with State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur (SBBJ), the banker of M/s Jagdish Satpal it was told that an amount of Rs.2,84,783/- was remained to be paid by complainant and they could not return Rs. Two lacs.  So they are not liable to pay this amount.  Objections about jurisdiction, accruing cause of action, relationship of consumer etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Sonepat (In short ‘District Forum’) accepted the complaint vide order dated 27.04.2016 and directed the appellant-opposite party as under:-

“……………...Thus, we hereby direct the respondent bank to credit the amount of Rs.2 lacs with saving bank interest which was prevailing on 16.10.2014 till its realization.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that complainant requested to make payment of Rs.Two lacs to M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal of Delhi under RTGS. The amount was sent in the account of said firm, but, due to technical problem the same was not entered in their account.  As per repeated requests of complainant Rs. Two lacs were against sent under RTGS in the account of M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal. There was no fault on it’s part and if the complainant was having any grouse then  he should have filed a suit for recovery against M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal, so impugned order be set aside.

8.      This argument is of no avail. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that complainant asked to transfer Rs.Two lacs only from his account to the account of M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal.  Appellant has failed to show that when the amount could not be sent for some time, complainant again requested to send Rs. Two lacs under RTGS.  In the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be presumed that complainant directed appellant to resend the amount.  It is admitted fact that complainant asked to send Rs.Two lacs , but, O.P. has sent Rs.Four lacs. Appellant is service provider and is to go by the advice of the consumer.  If there is any fault on it’s part, consumer cannot be penalized.  If SBBJ has not with-held Rs. Two lacs of M/s Jagdish Parshad Satpal, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.  If due to inadvertence the money was sent by appellant then it may take step to recover the same  from the concerned person, if law permits.  Impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  However appellant will be at liberty to initiate other proceeding as per law to recover the amount from the concerned person claiming benefit of limitation as provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

9.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July 29th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.