Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/190/2022

MOHD. USMAN KHAN & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 190/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Mohd. Usman Khan S/o Farid Khan R/o Village and post-Rukunpur Mauja Jugrajpur, Dist. Amethi, Sultanpur-227817	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, C-34/4, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035   The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Jagdishpur Branch, District Amethi, UP	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

14.03.18 07.02.23 12.06.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the complaint as revealed from the record are that the Complainant’s elder brother Rehan Khan has Saving bank account bearing no. 083001504086 with the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. ICICI Bank while the Complainant is keeping his saving account with Opposite Party No.2 i.e. UCO Bank. It is stated that on 15.01.16 the Complainant made the NEFT of Rs. 50,000/- from his account with Opposite Party No.2 to the bank account of Rehan Khan, maintained with Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that the officers of the Opposite Party No.2 had wrongly mentioned the account number of Rehan Khan as 053001504086 and the money was sent to some other account with Opposite Party No.1 bank. Since then the Complainant and his brother have been running from pillar to post to get their money back. It is further submitted by Complainant that the mistake committed by the Opposite Party No.2 is conspicuous from the following among other facts:-

1. On the National Electronic Fund Transfer Application Form the overwriting is visible even to the naked eye qua which the number “8” was re-numbered as number “5”.
2. There was no signature much less than initials of the Complainant on the above mentioned overwriting.
3. Behind the cheque the Account number of the beneficiary was clearly written as 0830001504086 by the Complainant.

The Complainant further stated that when the money was not received by the beneficiary Rehan Khan, the matter was reported to Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.2 procured from the Complainant a blank signed paper under the pretext to write a complaint to recover the amount and used the same for writing the application in which Opposite Party No.2 has deliberately mentioned the wrong account number on the application. It is further submitted that the said application is not written in the handwriting of the Complainant. It is also stated that it should be investigated that who is the officer responsible for overwriting the NEFT application form filed by the Complainant and should be punished for forgery and negligent conduct of Opposite Party No.2. It is also alleged that the officers of Opposite Party No.1 did not make any fruitful efforts for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- which was wrongly sent to some other account of Opposite Party No.1. The Counsel of the Complainant has also sent legal notice dated. 28.07.16 to the Opposite Parties thereby calling upon the Opposite Party No.1 either to refund Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant or Opposite Party No.2 to refund the amount to the Complainant. The Complainant has also made the complaint to banking Ombudsman but no action has been taken against the Opposite Parties till date. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by Complainant, praying for issuance of direction to Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant. He further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement.  The Opposite Party No.1 has contended that they are not liable for any wrong transaction made by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 is not answerable for the dispute which arose between Opposite Party No.2 and Complainant. It is also stated that if there any controversy regarding wrong entry made by Opposite Party No.2 then the Opposite Party No.1 has no concern with the same and there is no deficiency on their part in crediting the amount through NEFT transaction. As per RBI guidelines, in spite of RTGS transaction, only the account number of the beneficiary is to be checked while crediting the amount. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 acted as per the guidelines of RBI and has credited the said amount which was reflected in the said transaction. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable against them and is liable to be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 raised preliminary objection that the present complaint has been filed without application of condonation of delay while the same is barred by the limitation. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 admitted that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was transferred via NEFT in account number 053001504086 in the name of Rehan Khan. However, it is contended that they are not deficient and negligent in discharging services because they had sent the said amount to the beneficiary as per the account number mentioned in the NEFT form dated 14.01.16 and Complainant cannot blame them later on for his own mistake or the act of overwriting in the NEFT form. It is also submitted that all the allegations of Complainant against them about committing forgery and misuse of blank sign paper by bank officials are totally false and concocted. It is also submitted that there is no need of any investigation as the Complainant has himself committed error/overwriting in the account number of beneficiary which is very evident and clear from the letter dated 02.02.16 and NEFT form 14.01.16. Therefore, it is prayed that Complainant is not entitled to any relief against the Opposite Party No.2 and present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Shashank Raj, Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Abhishek Ranjan, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties  have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Complainant and Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
8. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant made the NEFT of  Rs. 50,000/- from his account with Opposite Party No.2 to the bank account of Rehan Khan, maintained with Opposite Party No.1 but the officers of the Opposite Party No.2 had wrongly mentioned the account number of Rehan Khan as 053001504086 instead of 083001504086 and the money was sent to some other account with Opposite Party No.1 bank. It is also alleged that Opposite Party No.2 instead of admitting their mistake and refunding the amount, Opposite Party No.2 procured from the Complainant a blank signed paper under the pretext to write a complaint to recover the amount and used the same for writing the application in which Opposite Party No.2 has deliberately mentioned the wrong account number on the application. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 bank has alleged overwriting in NEFT form by the Complainant while there was no signature much less than initials of the Complainant on the above mentioned overwriting. It is alleged that the overwriting has been done by bank official and committed forgery and must be investigated. The Complainant has also submitted that behind the cheque the Account number of the beneficiary was clearly written as 0830001504086 by the Complainant. In view of above, the Complainant has prayed for refund of the amount in question and the compensation.
9. The case of Opposite Party No.1 bank is that Opposite Party No.1 cannot be made answerable for the dispute arising between Opposite Party No.2 and Complainant on account of wrong entry made by Opposite Party No.2 . There is no deficiency on their part in crediting the amount through NEFT transaction because as per RBI guidelines, in spite of RTGS transaction, only the account number of the beneficiary is to be checked while crediting the amount. Hence no deficiency on their part has been committed.
10. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No.2 bank is that they are not deficient and negligent in discharging services because they had sent the amount to the beneficiary as per the account number mentioned in the NEFT form dated 14.01.16 and Complainant cannot blame them later on for his own mistake or the act of overwriting in the NEFT form. It is also submitted that all the allegations of Complainant against them about committing forgery and misuse of blank sign paper by bank officials are totally false and concocted. Complainant is not entitled to any relief against the Opposite Party No.2 and present complaint deserves to be dismissed.
11. It is to be noted that Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has raised preliminary objection that the present complaint has been filed without application of condonation of delay while the same was barred by limitation barred by the limitation. The perusal of record shows that it is an admitted fact that the transaction in question took place on 15.01.2016. The Complainant has filed the copy of legal notice dated 09.04.2016 sent to the Opposite Party No.2 and the copy of reply dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure-2) sent by the Opposite Party No.2. The present complaint was filed by the Complainant on 14.03.2018. In view of above facts, the delay is deemed to be condoned.
12. Coming to the merits of the case, the allegation of the Complainant is that the account number of beneficiary was written correct by him but the officers of the Opposite Party No.2 had wrongly mentioned the account number as 053001504086 instead of 083001504086the while the Opposite Party No.2 is alleging that the Complainant had done the over writing on NEFT form which led them sending the amount to wrong account. However, none of the parties have denied overwriting.  
13. In this context, it is important to note that Section 87 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, provides as under:-

Effect of material alteration- Any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties:

Alteration by endorsee- And any such alteration, if made by an endorsee, discharges his endorser from all liability to him in respect of the consideration thereof. The provisions of this section are subject to those of sections 20,49,86 and 125.

 

14. It is pertinent to mention that Reserve Bank of India has issued circular bearing Circular No. DPSS. CO. CHD. No. 1832/01.07.05/2009 dated 22^nd February 2010 provides as under:-

“Prohibiting alterations/corrections on cheques No. changes/ corrections should be carried out on the cheques (other than for date validation purposes, if required). For any change in the payee’s name, courtesy amount (amount in figures) or legal amount( amount in words), etc. fresh cheque forms should be used by customers. This would help banks to identify and control fraudulent alterations. ”

 

15.  The above mentioned provisions and the relevant extract of the RBI circular show that the banks are responsible for rejecting any negotiable instrument and requiring the fresh ones from the customers in case of any alterations. The perusal of the NEFT form also reveals that the endorsee had not signed/ endorsed the alteration made which indicates towards the negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2. In such case, the liability for any loss caused due to alteration, falls on the concerned bank. More so, Opposite Party No.2 miserably failed to cross check the account number of the beneficiary from the accompanying cheque as the Complainant has filed the copy of cheque accompanying the said NEFT form and on the back of said cheque the details of the beneficiary including the account number have been clearly written.
16.  So far as the Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, we find no role of Opposite Party No.1 in the present case as Opposite Party No.1 cannot be made answerable for the dispute arising between Opposite Party No.2 and Complainant on account of wrong entry made by Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.1 as their role was limited to credit the amount as per the account no provided to them by Opposite Party No.2.
17. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party No.2 has been deficient in providing services to the Complainant and liable for the loss caused to the Complainant.
18. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. UCO bank to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. on the said amount from the date when the said amount was debited from the account of the Complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost.

 

19. Order announced on 12.06.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)              Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President