Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/77/2017

M/s.Wallpaper World Rep by Proprieitor Meena - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited Rep by its General manager - Opp.Party(s)

Nathan and Associates

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.06.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  28.06.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 28^th  DAY OF JUNE 2019

 

C.C.NO.77/2017

 

M/s.Wallpaper World,

Rep by its Proprietor, Meena,

# 31, Rattan Bazar,

Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.                                                                                                           

                                                                                          …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

ICICI Bank Limited ,

Rep. by its General Manager,

#84, NSC Boase Road,

Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.

 

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Nathan and Associates

 

Counsel for   opposite party                     : M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the  opposite party  to transfer back the amount of Rs.2,49,237/- and Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant’s current account bearing No. 603105263772 maintained with opposite party along with 24% per annum till the date of payment with cost of complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant opened a current account vide account No.603105263772 with the opposite party and thereby had good relationship with the opposite party bank. On 31.10.2016 and 10.11.2016 the complainant, during the business hours in order to make payment to their supplier efficiently and immediately, they transferred their credit amounts of Rs.2,49,237/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively from their account in the opposite party bank to and in favour of “Dyuthi import’s Hyderabad”account vide account No:059605500283 owned by them in opposite party bank Hyderabad branch through RTGS mode of payment. Considering their bonafide act, they communicated the same to opposite party bank, Sowcarpet Branch, believing that the credit will be transacted to the said account within the time mentioned by as per the RBI regulations. No amount was credited to the said account from their company account and due to this mishap, the business got cancelled and causing losses and ill-repute to their company. It is submitted that the same was enquired by the complainant in the said week itself, but the opposite party authorities had not provided any proper response and blatantly submitted that it was an internal process of the bank and the same cannot be evaded  upon scrutiny.  It was found that there was a typographical error with respect  to the key in account number in the online transaction thereby the said amount has been credited to account number:059605500286 which is operated by a firm in the name of “Flames Pizza, Hyderabad” instead of the actual account number:059605500283 for which the amount was intended to be credited. The voucher filled as mandate before the transfer through RTGS also shows that beneficiary short name was filled in as “Wall King” and the above stated error was merely typographical which was permitted to occur by the carelessness on part of the associates employed by the opposite party. In the list of beneficiaries added by the complainant in the opposite party bank reflects the name of “Dhyuti imports” twice, one which is the correct entry and added much earlier and the subsequent one was the result of typo error of the complainant. In fact the entries the name entered by the bank is Dhyuti imports and it is the opposite party who have failed to match the account number and account name before processing the Transaction and committing on error. Though they had typed the name of the company in proper manner, their only error was that they had typed the last digit of the account number as “6” instead of “3” and further understanding the fact that if both the (i) Account number and (ii) Account name doesn’t match then the said amount shall not be credited to the beneficiaries account as per the regulation laid down by the RBI. The amount was not only credited, but further the opposite party had committed deficiency by not responding to their desperate pleas. The option of escalation was also not provided to them, which had put the complainant in great  harassment and mental agony. The complainant preferred a written representation through their letter dated 14.11.2016 to the Manager, ICICI Bank, Sowcarpet branch reiterating the said facts and requested to refund the same amount to the complainant’s current account and further backed it up with representation in person. No acknowledgement or endorsement was provided for their representation. Hence the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complaint is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Forum for non-joinder of necessary party i.e, The flames Pizza Hyderabd who had received the a sum of Rs.2,49,237/- and Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant which has been wrongly transferred through the RTGS due to mistake of the complainant. The complainant himself  has clearly admitted that they are doing the business in the name of M/s. Wall Paper World and hence the said proprietorship concern is not a Consumer and therefore he is not entitled to get any alleged remedy before the Hon’ble Forum. Real Time Gross Settlement (herein after referred as RTGS) transfer was made by the complainant through net banking mode and not via the bank branch channel. The reference numbers for such transactions are “S31247820” and “S74375600” on 31.10.2016 and 10.11.2016 respectively, the complainant did not communicate such transfer to the opposite party’s Sowcarpet branch as alleged by him. During net banking transfer had captured the account number of the transferee incorrectly as account number “059605500286” which belongs to “The Flames Pizza” instead of the alleged account they were trying to make the transfer to i.e. “Dhyuti Imports Hyderabad” holding account number “059605500283”. The  complainant made transfer by  RTGS to Dhyuti imports account held with ICICI Bank, Hyderabad which is not possible since RTGS is inter-bank mode of transfer. The RTGS cannot be done for intra bank transfers. The complainant approached the opposite party branch to add the name of the beneficiary M/s. Dhyuti import which is incorrect and false. There are no records of the complainant coming to branch and adding beneficiary and there is no physical voucher that was filled by the complainant. As per the statement of accounts  of the complainant, the transaction took place through online banking  RTGS transfer. With reference to the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party should have checked the details provided by the complainant for the RTGS  transfer  and pointed out the error in account number, it is submitted that once online RTGS transfer procedure is completed by the complainant, the transaction goes through an automated system of RTGS cell (an RBI UNIT) that checks for discrepancies between the IFSC code and account number of payee. But it does not check for discrepancies between payee name and account number that is why transaction was approved. The opposite party branch staff does not have record of any visit being made by such complainant for complaining about the said incident. Therefore, all the allegations made against opposite party are incorrect for aforementioned reasons and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.          

3. The complainant and the   opposite party had come forward with their respective proof affidavit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party had not filed any documents.

          4. The written arguments of the complainant and the opposite party were filed and the oral arguments of the both were heard.     

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

     1. Is the complainant a consumer?

      2. Is the complainant maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party?       

     3. Is there deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

     4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

 The complainant is the owner of the company named M/s Wallpaper World dealing with wall papers and accessories. The complainant has current account in the opposite party bank vide account number 603105263772. The argument advanced by the complainant is that the complainant is doing business namely, ‘Wallpaper World’ as a proprietor concern, hence he does not come under the definition of consumer. The complainant had submitted the following citations:

 

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD

VS

DR.B.N.RAMAN

IN

(2006 (3) CPJ 1)

SECTION 2 (1) (d) (ii) OF THE ACT

 

(i)  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires  or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than  the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;

 As per the apex court  citations, “Banking  is business transaction between bank and customers- such customers are consumers within the meaning of 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and also it is held that as per section 2(1)(o) of the act services inclusive the banking services very much fall under the ambit of the CP Act.  Hence the complainant comes under the definition of consumer and point No1. is answered in favour of the complainant.

7. POINT NO :2

 The complainant  while transferring the amount to  2,49,237/- , 1,50,000/- through net banking due to inadvertence given a wrong entry of the account number leading to the incorrect account number which belongs to one ‘The Flames Pizza’ instead of the original transferee namely ‘Dhyuti Imports’. The opposite party points out that these two parties need be added as parties. The complaint is filed against the opposite party bank for the alleged consumer negligence and deficiency in service, not a civil case against the opposite party therefore the point to be considered is whether there is any negligent act on the part of opposite party , where  in the above said parties play no role and hence  it is decided that they are not the necessary parties to the complaint.

8. POINT NO :3

  The complainant during the course of  business is having a current account in the opposite party  bank bearing No.603105263772. During his business transaction he transferred on 31.10.2016 & 10.11.2016  during the business hours in order to make payment to the suppliers an amount of Rs.2,49,237/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively  from the accounts of the opposite party  bank to and in favour of the account “Dyuthi import’s Hyderabad” vide account No.059605500283  which also owned by them in the opposite party  bank at Hyderabad Branch through RTGS  mode of payment. Later it was found that no amount was credited from their company account to the transferred company’s account due to typographical error. The last digit account number of the concerned company is mistakenly given as’6’ instead of’3’with respective key in account number  in the online transactions.  Thereby said amount has been credited to  the  No.059605500286 which is operated by a firm in the name of  “Flams Pizza, Hyderabad” instead of the actual account number 059605500283.

09. Transaction of the statement from ICICI bank in the month of October 2016 & November 2016 are marked is Ex.A3 & Ex.A4. List of beneficiaries is submitted in Ex.A2. The alleged letter submitted by the complainant in Ex.A5 is denied by the opposite party and there is no proof for the submission of the said letter to opposite party and no proof of delivery also. The letters in Ex.A5 do not disclose the detailed matter of the complaint. Hence it cannot be presumed as proper intimation to opposite party. The complainant issued notice to the opposite party through her counsel in Ex.A6, wherein she admitted the transfer of amount done by herself and the complainant has also stated in her complaint that she transferred the amount through online internet transfer and by inadvertence the last digit of the beneficiary is typed wrongly. The alleged communication also is not proved by the complainant as discussed earlier.

10. Ex.A7 &  Ex.A8 are the advice receipt of the bank regarding the transaction took place earlier through online. It is only an advice receipt for the debited amount as it is seen in the account statement of the opposite party. No documents are produced to prove that the transaction took place through bank by RTGS mode and also due to the mistake of the opposite party bank, the amount is credited into some other company’s account. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant herself had admitted the mistake of wrong entry done by her, while doing online transfer. The alleged communication to the opposite party bank is not proved by the opposite party also. In view of wrong entry by the complainant while processing the net banking transfer by herself, as pointed out by the opposite party, net-banking transfer would have captured the account number of the  transferee as account number ‘059605500286” which is said to be  the number of ‘Flames Pizza” instead of the alleged account of “Dhyuti imports’ Hyderabad holding the account number as  ‘059605500283’. In view of the wrong entry made by the complainant, she cannot blame the opposite party  for negligence.

11. The allegation of the complainant for the approach to the opposite party bank to add the name of the beneficiary is not supported by any authenticated records Ex.A2  is just the list of beneficiary. The statement of accounts reveals that on the day of transactions dated 10.05.2016,  it took place through ‘INF” i.e. Internet Fund Transfer, for which the print out taken on 05.05.2017 is Ex.A7 & Ex.A8.

12. As per the guidelines submitted by the opposite party, the transaction goes through an automated system of RTGS cell (RBI UNIT), after the transfer procedure is completed, it checks for discrepancies between the IFSC code and account number of payee, but it does not check for discrepancies between the payee name and account number. The opposite party bank cannot be held liable for non-checking of the discrepancies since post-approval is by RBI unit and not by the opposite party  bank.

13. As discussed above in detail, wrong transaction took place due to incorrect information such as wrong entry of the account number entered by the complainant by whom the transfer was done.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank and point 3 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO :4

It is concluded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint fails and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of June 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 01.04.2009         Copy of the Certificate of Registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover Rules, 1957)

Ex.A2 dated                            List of Beneficiaries

Ex.A3 dated October 16          Transaction Statement form ICICI Bank

Ex.A4 dated November 16      Transaction Statement from ICICI Bank

Ex.A5 dated 14.11.2016         Refund Request for Fund Transfer

Ex.A6 dated 27.02.2016         Legal Notices sent to the opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 05.05.2017         ICICI Bank Advice Receipt

Ex.A8 dated 05.05.2017         ICICI Bank Advice Receipt

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                      ……… NIL ……..

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT