DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 1.6.2017

                                      Decided on:   15.3.2019

Harpreet Singh Sandhu S/o Sh.T.S.Sandhu R/o House No.4, Preet Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       ICICI Bank Ltd., Ajit Nagar, Near Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala-147001 through its Branch Manager.

2.       ICICI Bank Ltd., Complaints Department,7^th Floor, ICICI Bank Towers, Financial District , Gachibowli, Hydrabad-500032 through its head of the department.

3.       ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.                                                       …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY

                              Sh.Rakesh Badhwar, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.R.K.Pandey, counsel for the opposite parties.

 ORDER

                                    SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Harpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  ICICI Bank and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that previously on many occasions he sent money to his daughter who is studying in  York’s University, Toronto, Canada through ICICI Bank, Ajit Nagar Branch, Patiala as outward foreign remittance. His daughter had to take admission in an add-on course to her 3^rd year masters of Psychology, which was very much beneficial to her career and her overall growth. The course fee was to be deposited by 6^th January,2017 by any means.Thereafter there was no further opportunity and spare time for her to  pursue for the same course due to her higher studies and tough University schedule. Considering the importance of course and out of love, concern and for the bright future of her daughter, complainant approached OPs on 20.12.2016 and requested for an outward remittance of Rs.1,58,100/- and he deposited the same with other bank charges i.e. conversion charges from Rupees to Canadian Dollars, Bank felicitation charges etc. The complainant was assured that the total money i.e. CAD3026.20 will be transferred in the York’s University Bank Account within 24 hours. Complainant furnished all the details of his daughter, student ID, university details and fulfilled all the bank formalities and whatever they required to transfer the amount immediately to the recipient University. The payment was meant for future career. Complainant approached many times at the above branch and requested to make the payment at the earliest. His daughter kept on running pillar to post at the point of remittance, requesting the concerned persons to check the status of her money.
3. It is alleged that due to lack of interest of the employees of bank and their gross negligence, his daughter lost her once in a lifetime opportunity which affected her future career concern very badly. She is also emotionally and mentally suffering because of the negligence of the staff and employees of the bank. Now due to this big jolt his daughter wants to leave her studies in between and planning to return back to India. All has happened because of the carelessness of the bank employees.
4. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached OPs Patiala branch. Every time he requested them either to transfer the amount to his daughter’s University account or to return the same to him so that he could transfer the money through any other bank but to no effect. Complainant also got issued legal notice   to the OPs and requested to refund the amount but to no effect. It is further pleaded that due to this negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant has suffered from loss and injury
5. On this background of the facts, the complainant has prayed for direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,58,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, loss of career and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the case by filing the written reply. In reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has filed the complaint without any legal ground and filed the same with ulterior motive just to harass and get easy money from the OPs. The   complaint may be dismissed with costs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
7.  On merits, all the material averments of the complainant are denied. However, it is further pleaded that the complainant visited the bank to transfer the amount of Rs.1,58,100/-(CAD 3026.20) in the beneficiary, namely Travelex Global Business Payments,1152, 15^th Street, NW, 7^th Floor, Washington DC-20005 in their account No.000011691641 with Royal Bank of Canada. Complainant has submitted the detail of payment, beneficiary account etc. vide Retail Outward Remittance Application-A2 Cum LRS Declaration form alongwith his copy of KYC i.e. Pan card, passport with the OP bank. The amount of Rs.1,58,100/-was sent to the account of beneficiary on 21.12.2016.After that the bank job comes to an end and the matter remains with the  beneficiary bank i.e. Royal Bank of Canada and the complainant.
8. It is denied that the OPs had to transfer the money in the York’s University Bank Account within 24 hours. After denying all the allegations, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
10. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of legal notice, Ex.C1, postal receipts, Exs.C2&C3, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.C4, copy of e-mail,Ex.C5, copy of remittance application,Ex.C6, copies of mails,Exs.C7 to C9.
11. The OPs tendered into evidence, affidavit of Arashdeep Kumar, Ex.OPA, copy of pan card of the complainant, Ex.OP2, copy of passport, Ex.OP3 & OP4 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for the OPs has also filed the written arguments.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has pleaded that he deposited Rs.1,58,100/- which was to be remitted to York’s University Bank account. Of course, the OPs have not categorically admitted this averment but it is pleaded that the complainant deposited Rs.1,58,000/- in the beneficiary account. The complainant was to deposit this amount as fee with the York University on behalf of his daughter. The complainant has no concern with any intermediate. The OP may have used to transfer the amount through any mediatory. The complainant has direct contract with the OPs. Therefore, the OPs were directly responsible for deposit of the amount with the beneficiary i.e. York University. The further correspondence of the OPs with the complainant also lead to the inference that the OPs were under obligation to deposit the amount in the account of York University. Copy of the letter Ex.C4 is on the record. As per this letter, the OP has admitted that they had initiated the request for recall of  funds but the same has been rejected on the ground that the beneficiary has declined to provide debit authorization. In case the OPs were not under obligation to ensure the deposit of fee in York University, the OPs were not to make correspondence with the alleged intermediatory. As the amount was received by the OPs from the complainant, therefore, OPs are directly liable if, the fee is not credited to the intended beneficiary i.e. York University. The OPs hve failed to refund this amount to the complainant or credited to the account of the beneficiary. Therefore, deficiency on the part of the OPs is proved. As such, the complaint is to be accepted in terms of prayed relief.
13. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands. Of course he has pleaded that he at many occasions sent money to his daughter through OPs but no detail has been furnished to prove this fact. The OPs were under obligation to act as per advise of the depositor i.e. complainant in this case. The amount was deposited by the complainant vide outward remittance application,Ex.C6. The name of the remitter is mentioned in this form. The account number to which the amount was to be debited is mentioned. Name of the beneficiary is mentioned Travelex Global Business Payments. Address of the beneficiary is also mentioned in this form and the amount was to be deposited in the account of beneficiary. Beneficiary account with Royal Bank of Canada. The OPs have duly credited this amount to Royal Bank of Canada in the name of beneficiary as per advice of the complainant. Now after remittance of amount with Travelex Global Business Payments, OPs are not liable for any further transaction. No deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OPs when amount stands credited to the account of beneficiary Travelex Global Business. As such complaint be dismissed with costs.
14. We have given consideration to the rival submissions.
15. The admitted facts are that the complainant deposited sum of Rs.1,58,100/- with the OPs. The complainant has pleaded that this amount was to be transferred in the name of York University Bank Account. Whereas the version of the OPs is that the amount was to be remitted with the Travelex Global Business. Complainant, after getting produced remittance application, has brought it on record as Ex.C6.Therefore, the entire controversy can be resolved on the basis of this document. This document find mentioned name of applicant, remitter, which is complainant. It also find mentioned the account number to which the amount was to be debited. The name of the beneficiary is mentioned as Travelex Global Business Payments. Address of the beneficiary is also mentioned as Travelex Global Business Payments,1152, 15^th Street, NW, 7^th Floor, Washington OC-20005 and account of the beneficiary is also mentioned with Royal Bank of Canada. There is no other documentary evidence to prove that the complainant directed the OPs to credit this amount in the account of York University as alleged by the complainant. It is also not the case of the complainant that the amount is not credited to the account of the beneficiary as desired vide application, Ex.C6.The OPs have categorically stated that this amount has been credited to the account of the beneficiary i.e. Travelex Business Payments through Royal Bank of Canada.
16. In these circumstances, no deficiency on the part of the OPs can be attributed. Therefore, the complaint is considered without merit and stands dismissed.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.3.2019       

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President