DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 730/2008
Sh. S. Roy Chowdhuary
S/o Late U.P.Roy Chowdhuary
R/o J-1967,CR Park,
New Delhi 110019 ….Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager,
ICICI Bank Limited
S-26,27,28 Veera Tower
Nr. Uphar Cinema
Green Park Extn.
New Delhi
The Regional Head Sales( Retails Liabilities Group)
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Regional Office
Bhishma Pitamah Marg
Pragti Vihar,
New Delhi-110003 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution :11.11.08 Date of Order :14.03.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Brief facts of the case are that in the month of May,2006 the then employer of the Complainant, namely, M/s Shiv –vani Oil & Gas Services Ltd., F-213/C, Lado Sarai, M.B. Road, New Delhi forwarded a cheque No. 0407645 dated 08.05.2006 for Rs. 778790 drawn on SBI, Industrial Financial Branch, New Delhi with payment advice containing the list of employees along with their names and the amount to be credited respectively in their favour. His name was at Sl. No. 42 and according to the said advice an amount of Rs. 42,705/- was to be credited in favour of the complainant. When the said amount was not credited in his account, he contacted with his employer who informed that the salary had already been sent to the bank. On inquiry from the OP he was shocked and surprised to know that his salary of Rs. 42,705/- was not credited to his account No. 007101519728; rather it was credited to a wrong account bearing No.007101519720 which was held by some other person. He visited the office of OP No. 1 who refused to give the particulars of the account holder in whose favour wrong credit was made. It is submitted that account number against the name of the complainant was inadvertently mentioned as 007101519720 instead of 007101519728 in the payment advice sent to the bank by his employer but his employer had requested the OP vide e-mail message dated 09.05.2006 (sent by one Mr. Jagdish Gautam of the employer company) to rectify the account no. from 007101519720 to 007101519728 but despite timely intimation the mistake was not corrected by the OP and the credit was made to the wrong account. The employees of the bank admitted their mistake and assured him that the credit would be made to his account. He made telephonic calls and personally visited to OP but the OP did not credit Rs.42705 /- in his account. He sent a notice to the OP No.2 on 24.07.2007 with a copy to OP No. 1 but no reply was received from them. Para No.10 of the complaint reads as under:-
“10. That it very humbly submitted that it is a bounden duty of the banker to check and verify not only the account no but also the name of the customer before any credit or debit is made to the customer’s account. The responsibility is still higher when they are to act on the basis of the written advice in which the name of the account holder/customer is given with the account no. The Respondent being a banker were bound to match the particular of the customer with their records but they failed to do so in the instant matter which resulted into financial loss to the complainant. But it seems, under a conspiracy hatched between some unknown employee of the bank and the wrong account holder neither the bank made the credit to the complainant nor the it gave the detail of the said account holder and the complainant has been left to suffer.”
Hence pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following reliefs:-
“I. Pass a decree/order in favour of the complainant with a direction to the Respondents to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 42,705/- as the money which ought to have been transferred to the Complainant’s account was credited to a wrong account
II. Pass an order directing the Respondent to pay to the Complainant an interest at the rate @ 15% p.a. from the date of wrong credit to the date of realization of the said amount.
III. Pass an order /orders directing the Respondent to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation for physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant as also the cost of his several visits to due to the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the Respondent and/or
IV. Pass an order/orders directing the Respondent to pay to the Complainant as sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of litigation cost.”
In the written statement the OPs have inter-alia stated that as unequivocally admitted by the Complainant himself the payment advice sent by the complainant’s employer mentioned the wrong account No. i.e. 007101519720 instead of 007101519728 which was the complainant’s account number. It is stated that due to the error of the complainant’s employer the amount of Rs. 42,705/- was credited to the account No. 007101519720 held by one Sh. Dharmveer Sheel and that it is clear that the fault lies on the part of the complainant’s employer. OPs have no responsibility to act as the recovery agent of the complainant or his employer for his/ their mistake and instead of taking up the matter against his employer, the complainant has wrongly proceeded against the OPs. It is submitted that the OPs followed up with the employer of Sh. Dharmveer Sheel, the person in whose account Rs.42705/- had been credited and gave information about the dates on which the amount had been withdrawn by Sh. Dharamveer Sheel. However the employer of Sh. Dharmveer Sheel did not respond to them. It is stated that since Sh. Dharmveer Sheel had withdrawn the amount wrongly credited to his account they could not recover the amount under any circumstances. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to bring these material facts on the record. It is further submitted that the complainant has wrongly averred that a mail message was sent on 09.05.2006 by Sh Jagdish Goutam, the employer of the complainant nor the Complainant has supplied the copy of the alleged mail to the OPs. In such circumstances, the OP bank cannot be penalized for the fault of the complainant’s employer. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs and has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Affidavit of complainant has been filed in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Naveen Trivedi, Manager (Legal) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the complainant’s employer Shiv-vani Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd. vide letter dated 6.05.2006 sent an advice to the OP bank to transfer the salary payable through bank transfer for the month of April, 2006 and complainant’s name was shown at Sl. No.42 wherein his account No. was wrongly shown as 007101519720 instead of 007101519728 (Ex. CW1/5). The complainant’s employer vide email dated 09.05.2006 through Sh. Jagdish Gautam wrote to the OP Bank (copy Ex. CW1/6) wherein it was mentioned that “ Kindly have reference to the list of the employees forwarded by us on 6.05.2006 for salary payable through bank for the month of April 2006. In the said list at serial no. 42 stands the name of Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury with account no. 007101519720. Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury’s actual account no. is 007101519728 and not account no 007101519720. Hence please credit to account no. 007101519728 accordingly”.
The complainant sent various letters to the OPs regarding credit an amount of Rs. 42705/- in his account but to of no effect.
In his affidavit OPs’ witness has inter-alia stated as under:-
“I further state and submit that as far as mail sent to the Respondent Bank on 9th May’2006 at ops71@icicibank.com is concerned, this mail was not received by us. I further state and submit that this email address was used only by the employee of the Respondent Bank for their internal dealing. And in case someone sends any mail on this email id, it bounces.
I state and submit that if the employer had sent that mail to the official email id of the Respondent Bank then the amount credited in the account of Mr. Dharamveer Sheel could have been stopped. It goes on to prove that the responsibility is totally on the part of the Employer of the Complainant.”
It shows that the employer of the Complainant through one Sh. Jagdish Gautam had sent an email dated 09.05.06 to the OP bank and it must be presumed to have been received by the OP bank. At the relevant time the above stated email address of the OPs was in existence. Therefore, if we believe the version of the OPs that the said email account was in the exclusive knowledge of the OP bank and its employees, the OP bank has not led any evidence to prove that the said email account was meant for the internal dealing of the employees of the OP bank. Secondly, the OP bank has not disclosed the date as to when the amount of Rs.42705/- had been credited in the account No. 007101519720 belonging to one Dharamveer Sheel. Therefore, how can it be presumed that the said amount of Rs. Rs.42705/- had been credited in the account of the said Sh. Dharamveer Sheel and in any case had been withdrawn by him before 09.05.06. Thirdly, the said Sh. Dharamveer Sheel had the said account in OP bank. Therefore, the OP bank could have easily made correspondence with him to refund the said amount to the OP. In any case, if the said amount had been wrongly transferred to his bank account due to any reason the OP bank had the option to debit the said amount from the account of Sh. Dharamveer Sheel and reverted it to the account of the complainant. However, instead of doing so, the OP bank has been putting the entire blame on the complainant and /or his employer. There is nothing material on the record to show that the OP bank had made any effort to recover the said amount from the said Sh. Dharamveer Sheel. Debit of the said amount from the account of Sh. Dharamveer Sheel and reverting it to the account of the Complainant by the OP bank cannot be said to be an act done by the OP as recovery agent of the Complainant. No rule to the contrary has been brought to our knowledge by the OPs. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs had infact committed deficiency in service in the present case.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs bank to refund Rs. 42705/- to the complainant alongwith interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and agony undergone by the complainant including cost of litigation to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 8% on the amount of Rs. 42,705/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 14.03.17.
