BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.320/17.
Date of instt.:30.11.2017.
Date of Decision:18.12.2018
Deepak Bansal s/o Shri Naresh Kumar, r/o Ward No.5, Shakti Nagar, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal. ……….Complainant.
Versus
- Indian Overseas Bank, SCO No.321, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.
- Dena Bank, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri Anil Chawla and Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Nitin Gupta, B.M. for the Opposite Party No.1.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is running a shop in the name and style “Deepak Security Solution” at Kaithal, for the last more than three years and is proprietor of said shop. It is further alleged that he is having a current account bearing No.272202000000129 with respondent No.1 bank. It is further alleged that Nisha Rani w/o Shri Yashpal Jindal, r/o Kaithal is running a shop in the name and style of “BEST SECURITY SOLUTION” at Kaithal having current bank account No.185711031062 in the name of his above firm with respondent No.2 Bank. It is further alleged that he had business dealing with aforesaid Nisha Rani for last two years. It is further alleged that on 21.07.2017, at about 18:08 PM, he had transferred a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his account No.27220200000129 with respondent No.1 to account No.185711031062 of “BEST SECURITY SOLUTION” with respondent No.2 from his mobile No.96715-91234, vide reference data/RRN No.720218159746 on account of business dealing and the said amount was accordingly, debited from his above said account. It is further alleged that later on he came to know that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was not credited in Account No.185711031062 of “BEST SECURITY SOLUTION” maintained by Nisha Rani with respondent No.2 bank nor the same was re-credited in his aforesaid account. It is further alleged that he visited the respondents several times and requested them that either the said amount of Rs.10,000/- be credited in the account of Best Security Solution with respondent No.2 or to re-deposit the said amount in his account with respondent No.1, but to no effect. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 had taken up the matter in question with its Head Office and on 13.10.2017 respondent No.1 assured him that the said amount has been credited in account No.18571103102 of “Best Security Solution”. On assurance given by respondent No.1, he visited the respondent No.2 again in this regard but respondent No.2 did not give any satisfactory reply where the said amount has gone. It is further alleged that he served legal notice to respondents through Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate in this regard, but neither the respondents gave any reply nor shown the amount in question credited in account No.185711031062 of “Best Security Solution” pertaining to Nisha Rani with respondent No.2 or returned back in his account with respondent No.1. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum and filed the reply submitting therein that the present complaint as framed is not maintainable against answering respondent as the transaction in question was generated on 21.7.2017, but the same could not be settled on the same day due to some technical problem and the same was settled on 24.7.2017; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decided the present complaint and Banking Ombudsman New Delhi is the proper forum to adjudicate such like matters between two banks; that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred by complainant on 21.7.2017 through I.M.P.S. in the evening but the transaction in question was timed out at beneficiary end i.e. the same could not be matured on that day but the same was settled on 24.7.2017 i.e. on next working day, hence it is wrong to say that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not credited in the account No.185711031062; that transaction in question was settled on 24.7.2017 instead of 21.7.2017; that a legal notice was received, but the complainant was appraised about the actual position duly mentioned above. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.
The opposite party No.2 also appeared before this Forum raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction, locus-standi, cause of action and mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and Banking Ombudsman New Delhi is the only Forum to adjudicate such like matters where two bank’s are involved; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that NPCI (National Payment Corporation of India) is the necessary party for just decision of case. On merits, it is submitted that the contents of transfer of amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of M/s Best Security Solution are denied as no amount in the sum of Rs.10,000/- was ever received in the account of M/s Best Security Solution, so question of crediting the amount in the account of M/s Best Security Solution does not arise; that respondent had not received any amount of Rs.10,000/- on 21.7.2017 from account No.272202000000129 maintained by complainant with respondent No.1, on inquiry, it was revealed that transaction in question was timed out and the amount still lies with the respondent No.1 as the same has not been received by answering respondent; that the complainant never visited the bank. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, Mark C1 to Mark C6 and closed the evidence on 28.08.2018. The OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; document Mark R-1 and closed the evidence on 30.10.2018. The OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A; document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 30.10.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant was having a current account bearing No.272202000000129 with OP No.1 bank.
6. It is alleged by the complainant that on 21.7.2017, at about 18:08 PM, he had transferred a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his account with OP No.1 to account of Best Security Solution maintained by Nisha Rani with OP No.2 vide reference data/RRN No.720218159746 on account of business dealing vide copy of statement of account Mark C1. It is further alleged that the said amount was debited from his account, but neither the said amount was credited in the account of Best Security Solution with OP No.2 bank nor the same was re-credited in the aforesaid account of complainant.
7. On the other hand, the OP No.1 contended that the transaction in question was generated on 21.07.2017, but the same could not be settled on the same day due to some technical problem and the same was settled on 24.07.2017.
8. The OP No.2 contended that no amount in the sum of Rs.10,000/- was ever received in the account of M/s Best Security Solution, so question of crediting the amount in the account of M/s Best Security Solution does not arise.
9. The complainant produced Statement of Account of Best Security Solution with OP No.2 from 10.7.17 to 30.7.17 as Mark C-6. Perusal of said statement shows that there is no transaction of any amount on 24.07.2017 in the said account, meaning thereby, the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- has not been received by the Best Security Solution till 30.7.17. At the time of argument, the ld. counsel for the complainant produced Statement of Account for the period of 15.7.2017 to 06.12.2018 of complainant’s firm namely Deepak Security Solution and same be placed on the case file. On perusal of said statement, it is found that the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- has not been credited back to the account of the complainant’s firm.
10. The OP No.1 relied upon the email dt. 12.9.2017 Mark C-5 confirming that the transaction of Rs.10,000/- is timeout at beneficiary end and same has been successfully settled with the beneficiary on the next working day and confirmation on credit of this transaction has been received from beneficiary end on 24.7.2017. At the time of argument, the OP No.1 also produced a copy of email dt. 05.12.2018 written by their internal staff/branch to each other confirming that the transaction in question has been successfully settled with the beneficiary vide IMPS Entry No.720218159746 dt. 21.7.2017.
11. The ld. counsel for the OP No.2 produced Statement of Account of Best Security Solution from 01.7.2018 to 14.12.2018 on the case file. The OP No.2 also placed copy of instructions issued by Reserve Bank of India as Ex.R1 on the case file, but on perusal of Para No.4 of this instruction, it is clear that the role of destination bank i.e. OP No.2, is limited to affording credit to the beneficiary’s account i.e. complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in that instruction, the RBI has not denied the role of the destination bank i.e. OP No.2 in whole. Moreover, the OP No.2 has not produced any document on the case file with regard to IMPS entry in question bearing No.720218159746 dt. 21.7.2017.
12. So, from the above pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that there is no dispute that the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was debited from the account of the complainant with OP No.1, was neither credited in the account of Best Security Solution with OP No.2 nor the said amount was re-credited in the account of the complainant with OP No.1. On the one hand, the OP No.1 is now claiming through email dt. 12.9.2017 Mark C5 that the said transaction of Rs.10,000/- is timed out on 21.7.2017 and the same was successfully settled with beneficiary on 24.7.2017. Whereas, on the other hand, the OP No.2 is claiming through statement of account of Best Security Solution as Mark C-6 that no disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- was received in the said account from 13.7.2017 to 29.7.2017. Since the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- was neither credited in the account of Best Security Solution with OP No.2 nor the said amount was re-credited in the account of the complainant with OP No.1, therefore, OPs No.1 and 2 ‘being remitter bank and beneficiary bank respectively, are liable to refund back the said amount to the complainant in equal share. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed an act of unfair trade practice. Hence, the OPs are deficient.
13. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay total sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in equal share. It is further directed to the OPs to pay interest @8% P.A. to the complainant on the said amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of transaction i.e. 21.07.2017 till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,500/- lump-sum on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.18.12.2018.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Anil Chawla and Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Nitin Gupta, B.M. for the Opposite Party No.1.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.
Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:18.12.2018. Member. Presiding Member.
