Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/79/2020

P.Vijayakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd, Rep by its Service quality Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. S.L.Sudarsanam

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                                              Date of Complaint Filed : 02.11.2020

                                                              Date of Reservation      : 27.12.2022

                                                             Date of Order               : 05.01.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                               : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,               :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 79/2020

THURSDAY, THE 5^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

P. Vijayakumar,

Aged about 47 years,

S/o. Late Shri. A.V.Ponnusamy,

New No.9 (Old No.56),

Vellala Street,

Purasawalkam,

Chennai - 600 084.                                                                                                                      …  Complainant

-Vs-

1. ICICI Bank Limited,

    Rep. by its Service Quality Manager,

    Mr.Sirisha A,

    Regd. Office: ICICI Bank Tower,

    Near Chakli Circle,

    Old Padra Road,

    Vadodara - 390 077.

 

Also at:

 

ICICI Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Cenotaph Branch (Teynampet),

Chennai - 600 018.

 

2. Union Bank Of India,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Police Line Burdwag Branch,

    West Bengal.                                                                                                                             ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant               : M/s. S.L. Sudarsanam

Counsel for the 1^stOpposite Party        : M/s.SaiKrishanan Associates

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party      : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation and damages for the negligence and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest @9% per annum along with cost of the complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that on 05.05.2018 at about 5.43 pm, the Complainant inadvertently transferred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to a Bank Account bearing No.538702010013525 (instead of account bearing No.558702010013525 held by his friend, one Mr.Murugan) based on an emergency request made by his friend, Mr.Murugan. Both these aforementioned accounts are held with Union Bank of India, the 2^nd Opposite Party herein. By oversight and due to the urgency, the Complainant had inadvertently transferred the said amount by way of IMPS facility to the above stated account instead of his friend's account. After the funds transfer, the Complainant came to know about the inadvertent error. Therefore,  the  Complainant  informed  about  the  erroneous  fund transfer

through his mobile to the Customer Care of the 1^st Opposite Party / Bank. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a complaint on 07.05.2018 to the 1^st Opposite Party / Bank requesting immediate action to retrieve his funds. He also approached Union Bank of India, i.e., the 2^nd Opposite Party herein and the 2^nd Opposite Party advised the Complainant to approach 1^st Opposite Party Bank. In view of the above, the Complainant sent an email on 29.05.2018 to the 2^nd  Opposite Party, namely, Union Bank of India, reporting the above said erroneous IMPS transfer and seeking assistance. However, there was no response from the 2^nd Opposite Party, Union Bank of India. The Complainant then preferred a written complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party / Bank on 12.07.2018. In this regard, the 1^st Opposite Party had stated that the 2^nd  Opposite Party / Bank was not responding to the 1^st Opposite Party / Bank. The Complainant was left with no option but to send another letter dated 04.08.2018 and in that connection the 1^st Opposite Party/ Bank had replied stating that they have not received any reply or communication from the 2^nd 5Opposite Party / Bank. The Complainant reliably understands that the 1^st  Opposite Party failed to act diligently on his complaint to set right the error as soon as it was reported and had also failed to interact with the 2^nd Opposite Party / Bank to reverse the erroneous transfer made to an account held with Union Bank of India, Police Line - Burdwag Branch, West Bengal. Further, no action was taken in this regard by the 1^st Opposite Party despite constant follow-ups by the Complainant. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 19.12.2018 by Speed Post to the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India narrating all the above facts and requested the 2^nd Opposite Party to reverse the said amount forthwith which was received on 10.01.2019 which is evidenced by online postal tracking report. However, there was no response from the 2^nd Opposite Party, Union Bank of India. It is duty of the Bank officials to verify and match the name of the recipient. However, in this instant case, without verifying and matching the name of the recipient, the 2^nd Opposite Bank proceeded with the transaction of the Complainant and credited the amount to an erroneous account. Moreover, despite the complaint preferred by the Complaint, no action was taken by the Opposite Parties and some unknown customer who doesn't have any right to use the said amount is enjoying the same. Both the Opposite Parties have carelessly dealt with the Complainant's grievances and neglected to act on the complaint and in the process the Complainant is unable to recover his hard earned money. Further, on 23.03.2019 the Complainant made a complaint to the Reserve Bank (Ombudsman), Chennai, narrating the entire facts and sought for his intervention to retrieve the amount belonging to the Complainant from the 2^nd Opposite Party. On 09.10.2019, the Complainant was constrained to send a legal notice calling upon the 1st Opposite Party to take necessary action to get the reversal of the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant's bank account forthwith. In response, the 1^st Opposite Party sent a reply dated 15.11.2019 through their Service Quality Manager accepting the error committed and also stated that the funds would be credited to the Complainant's bank account shortly. However, till date the said amount has not been credited to the Complainant's Bank Account as stated by the 1^st  Opposite Party. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have failed to take just and necessary action to recover the Complainant's hard earned money despite the Complainant diligently and faithfully following up for the same. Hence, the Opposite Parties have committed blatant deficiency in service and are negligent. Hence the complaint.

3.   Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that, this complaint is barred by limitation and hence ought to be dismissed in threshold, with cost. The cause of action arose on 05.06.2018, in such event the complaint ought to have been filed on or fore 04.05 2020, but the Complainant with wrongful intention and for his personal gam had filed this complaint in the month of November 2020 with a delay of 7 months from the date of cause of action. The 1^st  Opposite Party submit that, the Complainant had admitted the fact that, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-  was inadvertently transferred to a bank Account No.538702010013525 instead of an account bearing No.558702010013526 at his will. Though the Complainant addressed the issue to the 1^st  Opposite Party, the 1^st  Opposite Party could not do much to revert the funds which was already transferred to another account holder of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant himself had filed a letter communication dated 21.08.2018 in his typed set of documents wherein the 1^st Opposite Party addressed to the Complainant stating the facts that, the query raised by the Complainant has already been taken up with the beneficiary bank, (Union Bank of India) 2^nd Opposite Party to recall the funds. However the 1^st Opposite Party did not receive any communication from the 2^nd Opposite Party bank and hence the 1^st Opposite Party was not able to legitimately take any action for the reversal of the funds of the Complainant. Therefore it is abundantly clear that, the beneficiary bank 2^nd  Opposite Party herein ought to have taken necessary steps for reversal of the funds from the account no.538702010013525 in accordance with law. But the 2nd Opposite Party failed to do so. In such circumstances the entire liability ought to be fixed on the 2^nd Opposite Party and the complaint ought to be dismissed as against the 1^st  Opposite Party. The remedy of the Complainant is elsewhere in the civil court to recover said amount from the account holder having account No.53870201001352 But the Complainant had filed this complaint before this Hon'ble Commission making the Opposite parties as scape goats. The Complainant had approached this Hon'ble Commission with tainted hands and suppression of facts. It is submitted that the compensation claimed by the Complainant is beyond reasonable imagination which is without any cogent evidence or material for it to be considered. As it is settled principle of lar that, there should be evidence on record to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by the Complainant. under 39 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the term compensation means equivalence and the award of compensation by the forum has to be based on well recognized principles governing the quantification of loss or injury suffered to assess compensation and not arbitrarily and also it has to be established whether the loss alleged was direct result of negligence or whether it is remote. In the absence of such proof the claim cannot be sustained and has to be rejected totally. In this present case the bank had exercised its powers of issuing the notice demanding the lawful dues and the Complainants cannot take shelter under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

4.The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10.   The 1^st Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1^st Opposite Party, Ex.B-1 was marked.

5.     The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served and remained absent and hence set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

 

Point No.1:-

        The undisputed facts are that the Complainant who is maintaining Savings Bank Account with the 1^st Opposite Party bearing A/c No.000101507405 had on 05.05.2018 inadvertently transferred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to a Bank Account bearing No.538702010013525 instead of account bearing No.558702010013525 held by his friend Mr. Murugan. The dispute arose when the Opposite Parties failed to retrieve the funds of the Complainant inspite of repeated complaints made by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party.

        The contention of the Complainant is that he had sent a complaint on 07.05.2018 to the 1^st Opposite Party requesting immediate action to retrieve his funds. He had also sent mail on 29.05.2018 to the 2^nd Opposite Party regarding the erroneous transfer. However there was no response. The Complainant had then preferred complaints to the 1^st Opposite Party on 12.07.2018, and on 04.08.2018. The 1^st Opposite Party had replied that they did not receive any response from the 2^nd Opposite Party. Further on 19.12.2018, the Complainant had sent letter to the 2^nd Opposite Party. Though the letter was received, the 2^nd Opposite Party did not respond. Further contended that the Opposite Parties failed to protect the interest of the customer, i.e., the Complainant.

        The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that the cause of action arose on 05.05.2018 and the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 04.05.2020, but the complaint is filed in November 2020, with a delay of 7 months. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation. From Ex.B-2, it is evident that the 1^st Opposite Party had sent a communication to the Complainant on 15.11.2019 stating that the funds which was transferred to incorrect beneficiary account would be credited to the account of the Complainant after receipt of the same from beneficiary Bank i.e., the 2^nd Opposite Party, which also gives rise to a fresh cause of action and hence the complaint is within the period of limitation.

        Further the 1^st Opposite Party contended that the query raised by the Complainant  had already been taken with the beneficiary bank, the 2^nd Opposite Party to recall the funds, however the 1^st Opposite Party did not receive any communication from the 2^nd Opposite Party and hence the 1^st Opposite Party was not able to take any action for the reversal of the funds of the Complainant.

From the above discussions, it is seen that the Complainant had inadvertently transferred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to another account instead of transferring the amount to his friend’s account on 05.05.2018, where both the accounts are with the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant had informed the Opposite Parties about the amount transfer and had requested for retrieval of funds. As per Ex.A-3 the Complainant has sent e-mail dated 29.05.2018 to the 2^nd Opposite Party, about the erroneous transfer with no response. For the complaint raised by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party on 04.08.2018 vide Ex.A-4, the 1^st Opposite Party had issued a reply dated 21.08.2018, Ex.A-5, informed that they had taken up the issue with the 2^nd Opposite Party to recall the funds, and that they had not received any information from the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Opposite Party submitted that without the co-operation of the 2^nd Opposite Party the funds could not be reversed.

        Though the Complainant had made transfer of funds inadvertently to a bank A/c No.538702010013525 instead of 558702010013525, as per the RBI Circular dated 14.10.2010 bearing RBI/201011/235 DPSS (Co) EPPP No,   /863/04.03.2001/2010-11, it is the responsibility of the banks to afford Credit to the beneficiary’s account on verification of beneficiary’s name details to avoid risk perception. Had the 2^nd Opposite Party verified the beneficiary’s name in the present case definitely the inadvertent transfer would have been avoided. It is pertinent to extract clause viii of the Circular of follows:

        “In case where it is found that credit has been afforded to a wrong account, banks need in establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credits and set right the mistake and / or return the transaction to the originating bank. This particularly need to function very efficiently and pro-actively till such time customers are comfortable with the new arrangements”.

The 1^st Opposite Party, though contend that they had raised the issue with the 2^nd Opposite Party, there is nothing on record to show the steps taken by the 1^st Opposite Party to retrieve the funds that was inadvertently transferred by its customer, the Complainant except the communication sent by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, this Commission is of the considered view that from the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service in not promptly acting to the complaint raised by the Complainant, and failed to retrieve the funds to the Complainant that was transferred to wrong account by the Complainant and that failed to adhere to the guidelines stipulated by the RBI and act in a responsible manner to its customer, the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.                              

Point Nos.2 &3:-

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @6% p.a from the date of complaint till the date of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000,/- as compensation for the negligence and deficiency of service committed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with interest @6% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of the order and to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for the negligence and deficiency of service committed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fify Thousand Only) shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of order till the date of payment.

In the result the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 5^th of January 2023. 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Statement of Saving Account No.000101507405 of the  Complainant with 1st Opposite Party Bank
Ex.A2	-	Complainant’s Bank statement showing transaction dated 05.05.2018
Ex.A3	29.05.2018	Complainant sent mail to 2nd Opposite Party bank regarding erroneous IMPS Transfer
Ex.A4	04.08.2018	Complaint to 1st Opposite Party Bank by the Complainant
Ex.A5	21.08.2018	Reply by 1st Opposite Party Bank
Ex.A6	19.12.2018	Complaint sent letter to Regional Manager of 2nd Opposite Party Bank by Speed Post
Ex.A7	10.01.2019	Online Postal tracking report
Ex.A8	25.03.2019	Acknowledgement to complaint to Reserve Bank (Ombudsmen)
Ex.A9	09.10.2019	Legal notice issued by the Complainant
Ex.A10	15.11.2019	Reply by the 1st Opposite Party Bank

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

Ex.B1

21.08.2018 & 15.11.2019

1st Opposite Party bank written letters /communication to the Complainant

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT