Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Kulkarni

Opponent through M/S M. V. Kini & Co.

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

                                       J U D G M E N T 

                                           15/07/2014                                                                                                

          This complaint is filed by the consumer against the service provider for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant is a resident of Pimpale Saudagar, Pune.  The opponent no. 1 is a branch of ICICI bank situated at Shivajinagar, Pune and the opponent no. 2 is the branch situated at Malad (West), Mumbai.  It is the case of the complainant that on 8/4/2010 she had made online transaction from her account no. 015801002664 with the opponent no. 2 and she had transferred an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards deposit and an amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards rent in the name of one Mr. Atnu Bir of Pune bearing account no. 003901552688.  The transfer of money made by the complainant; was made to wrong and unintended account no. 003901552668.  It is the case of the complainant that the opponents have not provided proper service, even though she had committed mistake while putting account number of concerned person, the amount should not be transferred to the third party.  She had made complaint to the opponents about the said transaction and requested for reversal of the said amount of Rs.52,000/-.  But the opponents did not pay any heed to her complaint, hence she had filed the present complaint for refund of Rs.52,000/- along with interest @ 18% as well as compensation of Rs.75,000/- for mental and physical sufferings.

2]      The opponents have appeared before this Forum and filed written version.  They have denied that they have caused deficiency in service.  It is the case of the opponent that amount was transferred in the account of third party wrongly due to mistake of the complainant.  There is no any fault of the opponents while transferring the said amount.  The opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS    :-

4]      The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before this Forum that even though the complainant had committed mistake while entering account number in the online transfer, it is the duty of the opponent that the interest of the consumer should be protected.  It is significant to note that, in the present proceeding, the mistake is committed by the consumer and blame is put upon the opponent i.e. service provider for her own mistake.  Moreover, the opponent has produced extract of account of the complainant showing that an amount of Rs. 52,000/- as well as an amount of Rs. 17,006/- towards interest is credited in the account of the complainant.  In these circumstances, it is the considered opinion of this Forum that no cause of action survives.  In that context, the opponent has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission between “I. D. B. I Bank V/S Subhash Shah” in Revision Petition No. 4797 of 2012.  In this Ruling it has been observed as follows,

“Once the respondent received process    fee in    full and final satisfaction, he should have withdrawn complaint as assured and he was not entitled to receive any interest on that amount as well compensation and cost as  apparently there was no deficiency on the

part of the petitioner.  Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and granting interest, compensation and cost and learned State Commission also committed error in dismissing appeal in limine, which is  liable to be set aside.”

After considering the above quoted ruling, it is the considered opinion of the Forum that, if the compliance is made by the opponents during pendency of the proceeding, the complainant has to withdraw the proceeding; otherwise it should be dismissed on merit.  In the light of the above discussion, this Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.

          O R D E R 

1. The complaint is dismissed with no

order as to the costs.

                   2.       Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.

3.       Parties are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.