Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/675

Harkrishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Chhibba

04 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 675 dated 24.09.2014.                                                        Date of decision: 04.07.2022.

 

Harkrishan Lal Gupta, Prop. M/s. Harkrishan Lal Subodh Kumar, Gill Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

•  

1. Indusind Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Miller Ganj Branch, Opposite Overlock Road, Gill Road, Ludhiana.                                 
2. M/s. Polcopper SP.Z.O.O. Przysieka Polska, ul Przemyslowa 16, 64-030 Smigiel, Poland.
3. Natwest PLC, 25, High Street, Colchester, Essex CO1 1DG, U.K.                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Narinder Chhibba, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Alok Mohindra, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

For OP3                         :         Ms. Geetika, Advocate

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Tersely stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the proprietor of firm i.e. M/s. Harkrishan Lal Subodh Kumar and is engaged in the business to earn his livelihood. The complainant is having account with OP1 bearing No.200999364156. The complainant placed an order for purchase of 250 tonnes of heavy melting scrap (shredder) from M/s. Polcopper SP.Z.O.O. Przysieka Polska, ul Przemyslowa 16, 64-030 Smigiel, Poland, the total value of which was calculated as 19250 US Dollars  at the rate of Rs.60.07 per dollar equivalent to Rs.11,56,348/-. OP1 charged the service charges for sending the said amount to the seller in Poland. At the time when the amount was sent to OP2, the complainant disclosed  Swift account No.NWBKGB21 along with the complete address of OP2. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP2 with query as to whether the amount sent by the complainant has been received by it or not. However, OP2 informed that the amount has not been received at its end. Later on, it came to the notice of the complainant that OP2 credited the amount in wrong swift account bearing No.NWBKGB2L and at a wrong address of OP2 i.e. Polcopper SP ZOO United Kingdom. The complainant contacted OP1 about the matter, but OP1 failed to give any satisfactory reply. Even a legal notice dated 21.08.2014 served upon OP1 failed to evoke positive response. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP1 as OP1 was supposed to make the payment to OP2 as per Swift number disclosed to it by the complainant, but OP1 transferred the payment in some wrong Swift number causing loss to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.11,56,348/- along with interest to the complainant along with compensation and of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of deficiency of service.

2.                It is pertinent to mention that following an objection raised by OP1 in the written statement, that National West Minister Bank PLC is a necessary party and is required to be impleaded as a party, the complainant amended the complaint and impleaded National West Minister Bank PLC as OP3.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by OP1 and OP3. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. It has also been denied if the complainant is running business for earning his livelihood and that he has not employed any person to help him run the business. The fact that the complainant placed an order of huge quantity of goods i.e. 250 tons of heavy melting scrap by itself indicates that the business of the complainant is large one. According to the OP1, the complainant requested for outward remittance of USD 19250 through the beneficiary bank i.e. National West Minister Bank PLC in connection with advance import from M/s. Polcopper Sp. ZOO. In the application moved by the complainant, he had mentioned account No.57322570. The complainant further mentioned that OP2 held the account with NatWest Bank PLC. It has been admitted that in the application dated 19.06.2014, the complainant mentioned Swift code of the bank as NWBKGB21 and the said remittance was also sent on the correct swift code of the branch of NatWest Bank PLC where OP2 was holding an account. As requested by the complainant, the advance remittance of USD 19250 was effected through account No.200999364156 on 19.06.2014. The said remittance was made through USD Correspondent bank i.e. Wells Fargo Bank, New York for further credit to Natoinal West Minister Bank PLC where the beneficiary i.e. M/s. Polcopper Sp.ZOO maintained account no.GB13NWBK60060657322570. The said account number of OP2 was also duly mentioned in the application dated 19.06.2014 filed by the complainant. The remittance was effected through Swift Message MT103 with reference no.0201MPAD14110618. A bare perusal of the said message clearly shows that the name of the sender i.e. the complainant, the name of the correspondent bank, the name of the beneficiary i.e. OP2, the account number of the beneficiary, the name of the bank of beneficiary and the amount to be remitted have been correctly mentioned. After the said amount was remitted, the complainant sent a letter requesting therein that the funds should be recalled as the beneficiary has not received the amount and as such, the deal has been cancelled by the supplier. As per the request of the complainant, OP1 took up the matter with USD Correspondent Bank i.e. Wells Fargo Bank, New York  through Swift message vide reference no.0201MPAD14110168 and related reference no.F6061938420000  whereby the said bank was asked to check the fact on its end and to confirm as to whether the final credit has been given to the beneficiary or not. OP1 received Swift message from Wells Fargo Bank, New York vide transaction reference no.WACNY1418420707 whereby the said bank informed OP1 that the request has been lodged with National West Minister Bank PLC for obtaining a confirmation of credit and further information would be given upon the receipt of the information from the beneficiary bank. OP1 again took up the matter with Wells Fargo Bank vide Swift message dated 12.07.2014 asking for further information. In response to the said Swift message, the Wells Fargo Bank sent the swift message dated 16.07.2014 informing OP1 that they have sent number of message to the beneficiary bank i.e. National West Minister Bank PLC, but the said bank has confirmed that no funds remained with the beneficiary bank against the above said payment and as such, no refund can be made. The West Fargo Bank further advised that if any funds are to be recalled, then the matter should be taken up directly with the customer. OP1 further received another Swift message dated 08.08.2014 from the National West Minister Bank PLC, London wherein it was confirmed that the payment has been effected as per instruction value of GBP11027.15 on 19.06.2014 under reference No.IBCSE2I12997262 and no funds were with them against the said payment and therefore, the case stood closed and they are unable to refund the amount. From the above circumstances, it is evident that the amount had been sent to the correct bank with correct Swift code, correct account number, correct name of the beneficiary. Therefore, nothing wrong was done by OP1 and the complainant has unnecessarily engaged OP1 in frivolous litigation. It has been denied for want of knowledge that OP2 informed the complainant that the amount of USD 19250 had not been received by them. In fact, as per confirmation made by the bank of OP2, the amount duly stands transferred to the account of OP2. Even otherwise the complainant has not supplied any copy of written communication sent by OP2 wherein they might have denied the receipt of the amount in question.  The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP3, it has been pleaded that the complaint as against OP3 is not maintainable as there is no relationship between the complainant and OP3 nor any issue of deficiency of service against OP3 has been raised. According to OP3, the remittance  sent via Swift message to OP3 for credit to account No : International bank account No. (IBAN No:) GB13NWBK60060657322570 and Swift/BC (Bank Identifier No: NWBKGB21B which belonged to one senior citizen aged 94 years in 2014 named as  Mr. Victor Watson, since deceased. As per the computer system/.banking software system in use in NWB, UK, the system checks the IBAN (International Bank Account No.) and the fort code ( whichin the instant case was GB13NWBK60060657322570) which comprises of GB – country code, 13- check number, NWBK – bank code, 600606 – sort code, last eight digits- account number 57322570 and Swift code/sort code- NWBKGB21/NWBKGB2112B and if it matches with the target account as per the MT103 message from remitting bank (in this case- Wells Fargo Bank, USA) the computer system does use straight through processing (STP) where there is no manual intervention. Such a system can be compared to Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) in India, which matches the account number and IFSC code and credits money transferred from one account to another in real time. IBAN imposes a flexible but regular format sufficient for account identification and contains validation information to avoid errors of transcription. It carries all the routing information needed to get a payment from one bank to another wherever it may be. It further contains key bank account details such as country code, branch codes (known as sort codes in the UK and Ireland) and account numbers. It also contains check digits which can be validated at source according to a single standard procedure. As per statistics, IBANs have reduced trans-national money transfer errors to under 0.1% of total payments. OP3 has further pleaded that as is evident from the performa invoice sent to M/s.Harkrishan Lal Subodh Kumar, the account details tally with those of Mr. Victor Watson and since the IBAN and Swift code matched, the computer system did a STP transaction. The transfer of USD19250 was converted and credited to the account of Mr. Victor Watson on 19.06.2014 and the beneficiary value was GBP11,027.15 vide bank’s MTP199 message No.IBCSE212997262. It was reported to be a successful transaction as confirmed by OP1 in their letter/reply dated 01.09.2014 to the complainant. Therefore, according to OP3, STP does not allow for checking of name or address mismatch and checks only the IBAN and Swift codes and a successful transaction will mean that the IBAN given in the Swift message matches with the IBAN of the account held with National Westminster Bank and if the Swift code matches with the code given in the MT103 Swift message, the money will get credited to the intended beneficiary leaving no room for any error. OP3 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.                The complainant filed reply to the written statement filed by OP3 stating that written statement by OP3 has not been filed through an authorized person. It is further stated that OP3 bank does not have a banking license to operate in India. All other facts of written statement filed by OP3 have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer has been made to accept the complaint.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA and affidavit Ex. CAA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C23 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Pankaj Arora of OP1 along with document Ex. R1 to Ex. R11 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP3 failed to conclude the evidence after giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the evidence of OP3 was closed by order and OP3 was proceeded against exparte. However, OP3 was allowed to join the proceedings vide order dated 10.12.2021.

8.                We have heard the counsel for the parties as well as written arguments submitted by OP1 and OP3 and have gone through the record carefully.

9.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that OP1 has wrongly credited amount of 19250 US Dollars in some wrong account whereas in fact, the complainant had instructed OP1 to credit the said amount in the swift No.NWBKGB21 which was the account of OP2. However, OP1 credited the said amount in a wrong swift code bearing No.NWBKGB2L which was different from the one disclosed by the complainant. In this manner, the money went into wrong hands causing loss of 19250 US Dollars equivalent to Rs.11,56,348/- as per dollar exchange rate prevalent at that time. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP1 and OP3 and they must be held liable to refund this money to the complainant along with compensation, damages and interest, as prayed for in the complaint.

10.              On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 has argued that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of OP1. According to the counsel for OP1, on the basis of the request of the complainant, an advance remittance of USD 19250 was effected through account No.200999364156 on 19.06.2014. The said remittance was made through USD correspondent bank i.e. Wells Fargo Bank, New York for further credit to National West Minister Bank PLC where the beneficiary i.e. M/s. Polcopper Sp.ZOO maintains account No.GB13NWBK60060657322570. The said account number of OP2 was duly mentioned in the application dated 19.06.2014 filed by the complainant with OP1. The said remittance was effected through Swift Message MT103 with reference No.0201MPAD14110618. The name of the said sender/complainant, the name of the correspondent bank, the name of the beneficiary i.e. OP2, account number of the beneficiary, the name of the bank of beneficiary and the amount to be remitted have been correctly mentioned in the remittance. The counsel for OP1 has further contended that the complainant has claimed that the amount has not been received by OP2 and the amount be recalled. On the request of the complainant, OP1 took up the matter with correspondent bank i.e. Wells Fargo Bank, New York vide related reference No.F6061938420000 whereby the said bank was asked to check the facts on its end and to confirm as to whether the final credit has been given to the beneficiary or not. Thereafter, OP1 again took up the matter with Wells Fargo Bank, New York vide transaction reference No.WACNY1418420707 asking for further information. In response to the said Swift message, the Wells Fargo Bank sent the swift message dated 16.07.2014 informing OP1 that they have sent number of message to the beneficiary bank .e. National West Minister Bank PLC but the said bank has confirmed that no funds remained with the beneficiary bank against the above said payment and no refund could be made. The counsel for OP1 has further contended that OP1 also received another message dated 08.08.2014 from the National West Minister Bank PLC, London whereby it was confirmed that the payment has been effected as per instructions value of GBP11027.15 on 19.06.2014 under reference no.IBCSE2112997262 and no funds were with them against the said payment and as such, the case had been closed. The counsel for OP1 has further contended that the amount has been sent to the correct bank with correct swift code, correct account number, correct name of the beneficiary. Therefore, nothing wrongful has been done by OP1 and the complainant has needlessly engaged OP1 in unnecessary litigation. In support of his arguments, the counsel for OP1 has relied upon 2012(2) C.P.J. 151 in Bright Transport Co. Vs Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery etc. and the trial of which would require voluminous evidence and considerations are not to be entertained by Consumer Fora and, therefore, not maintainable. The counsel for OP1 has also relied upon 2008(3) CLT 481 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dwarika Dhees Industries whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that if the disputed questions of facts and law relating to forgery etc. are involved required recording of voluminous evidence, it will be desirable that the matter should not be dealt with by any Consumer Fora and the complainant could be directed to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Fora.

11.              We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.  

12.              Primarily, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had instructed OP1 to remit the amount of USD 19250 in Swift No.NWBKGB21 whereas OP1 credited aforesaid amount in a wrong Swift code bearing No.NWBKGB2L and not in NWBKGB21. It has been claimed that Swift code No.NWBKGB2L was of a different person and not that of OP2. In the invoice Ex. C7 placed on record by the complainant issued by OP2 in favour of the complainant firm, the said seller’s bank account mentioned as IBAN:GB13NWBK60060657322570 and swift code is mentioned as NWBKGB21. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Swift number/code such as NWBKGB21 or NWBKGB2L pertains to the bank or a particular branch of a particular bank in which the relevant account is maintained. The Swift code does not indicate an account number. Rather it indicates and refers to a particular bank or particular branch of a particular bank. So far as the swift code No.NWBKGB21 is concerned, it is not the account number of OP2. In fact, it indicates that this code is that of National West Minister Bank PLC London. The account of the party is IBAN:GB13NWBK60060657322570. It appears that Swift code No.NWBKGB21 is not swift code of any bank and the correct swift code of National West Minister Bank PLC London is NWBKGB2L as is evident from Ex. R1 which is the list of Swift codes of all branches of National West Minister Bank PLC. From the list Ex. R1, it further stands proved that Swift code is the code of some particular branch of a bank and it has got nothing to do with the account number of any account holder or identity of the account holder.

13.              The entire case of the complainant hinges on the premise that OP1 wrongly credited USD 19250 in some wrong account number whereas the complainant had requested to transfer the money in Swift account No.NWBKGB21 and not NWBKGB2L. As is evident from the foregoing discussion, the swift code is only a code of the bank, identity of particular branch of a bank.  The complainant has claimed that the amount of USD 19250 was not credited in the beneficiary account bearing No.57322570 as is mentioned in Ex. R2 which is an application submitted by the complainant itself requesting for the remittance of the amount. However, strangely enough, the complainant has not placed on record any document that the account No.57322570 was actually the account of M/s. Polcopper Sp.ZOO, the company/firm from which the complainant had imported goods.

14.              Secondly, the complainant has claimed that the amount was not transferred in the beneficiary account bearing No. No.57322570. However, the complainant has not placed on record statement of account pertaining to the account No.57322570 to conclusively prove that the amount of USD 19250 was not transferred in the said account. The complainant has specifically alleged that his seller has informed him that he has not received the amount in his account. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the complainant to ask his seller (OP2) to send him a copy of his statement of account which could have cogently proved that no amount was transferred in his account. However, in the absence of any evidence pertaining to account of the seller by the complainant namely M/s. Polcopper Sp.ZOO, it is not clear whether the account No.57322570 mentioned in Ex. R2 actually was that of M/s. Polcopper Sp.ZOO or that the money was transferred in his account. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the case of the complainant has no legs of its own to stand upon. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common knowledge that all the international transactions particularly inter country import and export  are conducted under ICC Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits in short called UCP600. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the transactions are digital and unless and until the correct account number, swift code and other particulars are filled properly, the transaction cannot be successfully completed. In the given facts and circumstances of the instant case, possibility cannot be ruled out that the seller of the complainant supplied him a wrong account number or the account number of somebody else in order to later on say that he has not received the requisite amount. The possibility of a fraud having been played with the complainant by OP2 can also not been ruled out under the facts and circumstances of the present case and the things would have been clarified only if the documentary proof of the existence of alleged account in the name of M/s. Polcopper Sp.ZOO with its statement of account had been proved on record of this case. Thus, looking at the case from any angle, OP1 bank cannot be held guilty of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as the amount of USD 19250 has been sent strictly as per the information supplied in application Ex. R2 by none else than the complainant himself. OP3 has specifically alleged in its written statement that as per computer/banking software system in use in NWB, UK, the system checks the IBAN (International Bank Account Number). In the instant case, it was GB13NWBK60060657322570 which can be deciphered in the following manner:-

i) GB- is country code

ii) 13- is check number

iii) NWBK – is Bank code

iv) 600606 – is sort code

v) last eight digits are account number 57322570.

It is further categorically stated in the written statement that transactions are made using Straight Through Processing (STP) system- which is comparable to RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) used in India, based on account number and IFSC code. According to OP3, IBAN imposes a regular format for account identification to avoid errors. It contains key bank details such as country code, branch code, account numbers. OP3 has further claimed that details of account number mentioned on the proforma invoice sent to the complainant tally with that of one Mr.Victor Wilson (since deceased) and the money went into that account only on 19.06.2014 through a successful IBAN STP transaction meaning that IBAN given in the swift message matches with the IBAN of the account held with the National West Minister Bank. Thus, there is no room for error. This part of the claim of OP3 has not been controverted by the complainant in specific terms. No evidence has been led by the complainant that IBAN or account number GB13NWBK60060657322570 was that of OP2 and not that of Victor Wilson.

15.              Even otherwise, we are afraid that the complainant would not be covered under definition of consumer for the purpose of this complaint. Admittedly, the complainant has used the services of OP1 for commercial purpose i.e. for import a huge consignment for business purpose involving a huge amount and the total cost of the consignment was USD 96250. Moreover, as stated above, if it is a case of fraud, even then this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as to prove the allegations of fraud involves recording of voluminous evidence in detail which cannot be done in a summary case by this Commission. 

16.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. This order will not preclude the complainant from taking any appropriate remedy before any other Forum, if permissible under law. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

17.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Harkrishan Lal Gupta Vs Indusind Bank Ltd.                           CC/14/675

Present:       Sh. Narinder Chhibba, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Alok Mohindra, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

                   Ms. Geetika, Advocate for OP3.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. This order will not preclude the complainant from taking any appropriate remedy before any other Forum, if permissible under law. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.