West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/116/2017

Sri Jayanta Kumar Dolai - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asok Kumar Chouhan

27 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                           

     

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

Complaint Case No.116/2017

Sri Jayanta Kumar Dolai, S/o-Late Subal Chandra Dolai,

Prop. of Sri Sri Ramkrishna Cement Works, at Ambi, P.S.-Patashpur,  P.O.-Chandpur, District-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                ..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

                                  1) ICICI bank Ltd., Kharagpur Branch, Malancha Road, P.O.-Kharagpur & P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

 

                     2) Senior Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bandra Kurla Complex, ICICI Bank Tower, Mumbai-400051

 

                    3) Zonal Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road,  Land Mark Building, 11^th Floor,

                                  Lala Lajpat Roy Sarani, Kolkata-700020

 

                   4) Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Naipur Branch,  P.S. & P.O.-Patashpur, District-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                                              .…...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

                For the Complainant  : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhury, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                 : Mr. Shirshendu Krishna Maity Das, Advocate.

 

                Decided on: 27/12/2017

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :

 

                     Complainant files this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

  In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant is the proprietor of Sri Ramkrishna cement works of District Purba Medinipur who is a sub dealer of M/s-Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kharagpur. Complainants firm transferred from its account

                                                                                                                                                       Contd……………P/2

                                    

                                                                                       ( 2 )                               

Rs.50,000/- in favour of  Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kharagpur on 22/01/2016 through NEFT through complainants Bank United Bank of India, Naipur Branch under utr no.                                                           

utbin16022615624 dated 22/01/2016 but unfortunately misquoted account no. of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. Has been written as A/c no.083405000827 instead of A/c no.08345000872                                                      

of ICICI Bank, Kharagpur branch. When Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. Informed the complainant that they have not received Rs.50,000/- then complainant informed the matter his banker United Bank of India, thereafter said UBI through e-mail requested ICICI Bank to return back the said amount to the senders but in vain. The complainant intimated the matter to O.P. nos. 2 & 3 and requested them to solve the problem but they did not reply. Complainant finding no way approached before this Forum for getting redressal with some prayer as per complaint.

O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia, that this complaint is not maintainable u/s-2(d) of the C.P.Act, this O.P. return back the amount to the complainants account on 05/09/2017 which was erroneously credited in the wrong account. Complainant is not a consumer of O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3, these O.P.s have no deficiency of service and these O.Ps.  prayed for dismissal of the case.                                                                                                         

                                            Points for decision :-

1. Is the complaint  maintainable as per C.P. Act ?
2. Are the opposite parties deficient in service ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief ?    

                             Decision with reasons

All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience, brevity and consideration.  Fact of the case is, that complainant is a businessman and he sent Rs.50,000/- to M/s- Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. through NEFT from his banker UBI and said amount would have to credited in the account no.08345000872 of his trader but at the time of NEFT from UBI, complainant wrongly put the a/c no.08345000827 and accordingly the said sum was credited in the account no. 08345000827 but at the time of NEFT  from UBI, complainant wrongly put the a/c no. 08345000827 and accordingly the said sum was credited in the account no.08345000827 and  in this context O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 have no negligent or any latches. Complainant banker requested O.P. no.1 to return back the account to complainants account, subsequently sent legal notice to the O.P. nos. 2 & 3 for taking step but complainant is unable to prove that legal notice was duly served upon O.P. no. 2 & 3.

                                                                                                                                                     Contd……………P/3

                                                                                             ( 3 )                                     

 

To prove his case complainant tenders himself as PW-I and produced some documents which marked as (Exhibit 1 to 5) respectively with objection and  he cross-examined by O.P. nos. 1 to 3. In his cross-examination PW-I admits that he has no  account in ICICI Bank and he himself filled up NEFT Form and due to mistake the amount of Rs.50,000/-                                                                                                    

has been credited in the account number which he has mentioned in the NEFT form. He  also admits that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction of the wrong account number. O.P. nos. 1 to 3 stated in their written version that as per RBI circular “the  responsibility to enter correct account number  solely rests   on the remitter and sole of the destination bank is to base reliance on the account umber and transfer the money and not to verify whether the name entered in the NEFT transaction matches the account number”. O.Ps. stated in their written version that the account number entered in the NEFT form was 083405000827 which pertained to one Mr. Bhaskar Pradhan and O.P. no.1 credited Rs.50,000/- in the above a/c number of Mr. Bhaskar Pradhan and said person was enjoying temporary overdraft facility of Rs.49,966/- with the  O.P. no.1 and due to in sufficient fund in the account held by Mr. Bhaskar Pradhan O.P. no.1 was unable to returned the amount immediately and a lien was marked on the account on the same day when the transaction was initiated  by the complainant.

In view of the discussion we find that O.P. no.1 rightly credited Rs.50,000/- as per account number of  NEFT and said person i.e. Mr. Bhaskar Pradhan withdraw Rs.49,666/- from said amount as overdraft facility but complainant intimated matter at a later stage to the O.P. no.1, that a/c  number mentioned in the NEFT is erroneously written by him.  However O.P. no.1 return back Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on 05/09/2017.

From the complaint complainant himself admitted that he is a businessman and he made transaction for the purpose of his business and sent Rs.50,000/- to his trade. As per C.P. Act sec.2(d) the complainant is not a consumer as he made transaction with the O.Ps. purely business purpose of commercial use. This Forum has no power to try any case who is not a consumer as per definition of sec. 2(d) of C.P. Act and as per act any person engaged in a business for the purpose of  commercial use he is not a consumer as per act and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Moreover due to mistake or wrong doing on the part of the complainant the amount was deposited in a wrong account number as such Op. no.1 has no latches, negligence or deficient in rendering service.

 

                                                                                                                                                         Contd……………P/4

                                                 

                                                                                              ( 4 )                                    

In view of the discussions herein above it is established that complainant case is not maintainable and on the other hand O.Ps. have no negligence or deficient in service.                                        

Under such circumstances complaint case fails.

           Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

                          that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost against the O.Ps..

                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

           Dictated and Corrected by me

                        

 

                             Member                                                                                   President

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur