BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 13^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.13,79,054/- towards loss suffered by him together with damages of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant has Banking transactions of M/s.Indian Bank, New Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore.  That the over draft account number of complainant with OP-3 Bank is 422311439.  That the complainant had sent payment through RTGS (real time gross settlement) on 5^th February 2015 in favour of M/s K. Amishkumar Trading Pvt Ltd., for a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- vide cheque bearing No.069805 through their banker OP-3.  That OP-3 confirmed, vide their letter dated 29^th March 2015.  That OP-3 has deducted a sum of Rs.57/- towards charges for transferring the amount.  That the complainant received the confirmation stating that the said amount has been credited to account No.914020046326870, IFS code No.UTIB0000357.  That the complainant has also received confirmation from OP-3 under number UTR IDIBR52015020510853089.  That the complainant has sent a e-mail in confirmation of the above said transaction.  However during telephonic conversation with their vendor they came to know that the said amount has not been credited to their vendor account.  That immediately the complainant lodged complaint dated 26^th February, 2015 to OPs.1 & 2.

That the complainant took up the matter with their banker OP-3 and they confirmed that the amount has been sent to branch of OP-2 by mentioning the account number as well as the name of the beneficiary.  OP-3 also sent e-mail dated 16.02.2015 to OP-2.  In reply to the said e-mail OP-2 vide their e-mail dated 3^rd March 2015 confirmed that the payment has been resulted in fraud.  Therefore, it is evident that OPs.1 & 2 without proper verification and out of negligence have credited the proceeds of above RTGS to some other fictitious account wrongly and thereby deprived the proceeds of the credit to the real beneficiary.  That OP-2 vide their letter dated 10^th March 2015 sent a letter informing that they shall send a suitable reply within 15 days.  That OP-3 has failed to make basic checks of verifying the beneficiaries’ details with photograph and PAN number which are mandatory.  That the OP-3 is also vicariously responsible for wrong credit of the amount.  That on account of negligence on the part of OP-2 and OP-3 the complainant could not clear the outstanding dues to their vendors who are insisting upon for payments.  Despite repeated requests by the complainant, OPs have failed to take any action in this matter.  That the fraudulent payment of the above said amount of Rs.11,29,054/- is a serious criminal offence of cheating, forgery, fraud and criminal conspiracy punishable under the provisions of IPC.

That the complainant caused a legal notice dated 27.02.2015 calling upon the OPs to pay him a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- together with interest @ 18% p.a.  That though OP-1 sent a reply dated 10.03.2015 stating that they are examining the matter so far they have failed to settle the same.  That on account of deficiency and negligence of service on the part of OPs, the complainant has suffered loss to an extent of Rs.11,29,054/-.  Therefore, OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant to an extent of Rs.11,29,054/- together with interest @ 18% p.a besides they are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and sum of Rs.50,000/- towards costs.    

3. In response to the notice issued OPs.1 & 2 appeared through their advocate and filed their joint version contending in brief are as under:

That the complainant has deliberately and mischievously suppressed production of material documents namely the challan/counterfoil relating to RTGS facility availed by him from OP-3 as the same would disclose the true fact that it is the serious lapses, negligence on its part has resulted in wrong credit.  That the complainant nowhere in the complaint or in the correspondence mentions as to what is the account number of the so called beneficiary of the RTGS services availed by him.  That there is no relationship of customer and the bank between the complainant and the OPs.1 & 2.  That the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of OPs.1 & 2.  Therefore, no liability what so ever can be fastened against Axis Bank Ltd.  That the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  That the complainant ought to have made M/s.Mahak Garments having account bearing No.914020046326870 to the proceedings as the amount of Rs.11,29,054/- is remitted to the said account.  That the complainant ought to have made M/s.K.Amish Kumar Trading Pvt. Ltd., as party to the proceedings.  That the dispute raised by the complainant involves complicated questions which cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner in the proceedings prescribed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, the complainant be directed to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the dispute.

That the RTGS was initiated by Indian Bank on 05.02.2015 for transfer of sum of Rs.11,29,054/- to the account bearing No.914020046326870, IFSC code No.UTIB0000357 standing in the name of M/s.Mahak Garments.  As the account details and IFSC code was correct, the said transaction was settled on 05.02.2015 in consonance/terms of the circular bearing No.RBI/2010-11/235 DPSS (CO) EPPD No/863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated 14.10.2010 issued by the Reserve Bank of India on RTGS/NEFT/NECS/ECS.  That OPs got the intimation only on 09.02.2015 about the wrong credit made by the complainant.  But by that time the account holder i.e., M/s.Mahak Garments having account No.914020046326870 withdrew the amounts leaving only a sum of Rs.297.82 in the said account.  That OPs.1 & 2 have tried to contact the said account holder i.e., M/s.Mahak Garments for recovery and the concerned party was not available at the given address.  That on receipt of e-mail dated 26.02.2015 of the complainant the aforesaid facts have been duly intimated to the complainant by OPs.1 & 2.  That the above mentioned circular dated 14.10.2010 issued by the RBI RTGS/NEFT/NECS/ECS which binds the complainant as well as OP-3.  That it is the responsibility of the complainant and OP-3 to provide correct inputs in the payment instructions, particularly the account number etc.  As per the said circular, reliance shall be placed only on the account number for the purpose of affording credit.  As per the circular, the originating Bank i.e., Indian Bank Ltd., whose services have been availed by the complainant upon paying charges is required to put in place an appropriate maker–checker system to ensure that the account number information furnished by its customer i.e., complainant is correct and free from errors.  In addition to that the complainant while submitting funds transfer request to OP-3 was required to write down the account number information twice in the application form.  As per the said circular, the destination bank i.e., OP-1 may afford credit to the beneficiary to the account based on the account number as furnished by remitter/the originating Bank in the massage/data file.  That OP-3 vide their letter dated 16.02.2015 has admitted that they have done the RTGS customer transaction with wrong beneficiary account.  That though the complainant and OP-3 were fully aware of the RTGS customer transaction with wrong beneficiary account done by them have not intimated the same to OPs.1 & 2 immediately either on 05.02.2015 or early hours of 06.02.2015 so as to enable the OPs.1 & 2 to take suitable measures to ensure that the amount of Rs.11,29,054/- credited to the account of M/s.Mahak Garments is not withdrawn by the said account holder.  That OPs.1 & 2 by their letters/e-mails to the complainant have intimated that M/s.Mahak Garments has withdrew the said amount before 09.02.2015 and the account holder was not available for communication and assured full co-operation to the complainant to retrieve the monies belonging to it.  Therefore, OPs.1 & 2 cannot be found fault with on any counts.

That there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.1 & 2.  That OPs.1 & 2 after due verification of the account number, remitted the amount to the account of beneficiary, whose account number was transferred to them.  That no offence as alleged in the complaint can be made out from the allegations made.  That OPs.1 & 2 are not in any way liable to compensate the complainant.  That the complainant is not at all entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for.

For the above amongst other grounds OPs.1 & 2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. OP-3 entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That it is true to state that on 05.02.2015 the complainant through OP-3 Branch has filled the form to RTGS.  That the money has been transferred by way of RTGS based on the information/request provided by the complainant to the OP-3 Bank.  That after cross verifying the IFSC code mentioned by the complainant, OP-3 has sent RTGS to beneficiary mentioned in the request/RTGS application.  That OP-3 Bank being a sender of RTGS can only cross verify the IFSC code and cannot access to other details like account number, name of the beneficiary etc., which can only be verified by the beneficiary banker i.e., OPs.1 & 2 herein.  That as per the request made by the complainant, OP-3 has sent RTGS of Rs.11,29,054/- vide UTR No.IDIBR 52015020510853089.  That this OP has not committed any deficiency of service.  That if at all any fraud is committed it is for the concerned to approach the competent authority against the fraudulent person.

For the aforesaid reasons, OP-3 prays for dismissal of the complaint as against them.

5. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint Marketing Executive of complainant filed his affidavit evidence.  The complainant has also produced certain documents in support of the allegations made in the complaint.  On behalf of OPs.1 & 2 one Shekhar Dey, Deputy Vice President and Branch head of OP-1 filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the averments made in the version.  OPs.1 & 2 have also produced certain documents in support of their case.  OP-3 did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.  Written arguments have been submitted by the complainant as well as OPs.1, 2 & 3.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. It is not in dispute that, on 05.02.2015 the complainant sent payment through RTGS in favour of M/s.K.Amishkumar Trading Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- vide cheque bearing No.069805 through their Bankers OP-3.  OP-3 also confirmed the receipt of request for payment through RTGS from complainant on 05.02.2015 for a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- and OP-3 also deducted a sum of Rs.57/- from the account of complainant towards charges for transferring the amount.  The statement of accounts of complainant firm maintained at OP-3 also shows the transfer of Rs.11,29,111/-.  Subsequently the complainant also received the confirmation from OP-3 stating that the said amount has been credited to account No.914020046326870, IFS code No.UTIB0000357.  The complainant has also received confirmation from OP-3 under No.UTR IDIBR52015020510853089 dated 29^th March 2015.  Thereafter, the complainant has sent e-mail in confirmation of the above transaction.  However, the vendors of the complainant i.e., M/s.K.Amishkumar Trading Pvt. Ltd., informed the complainant that their account has not been credited with the proceeds of the above cheque.  Immediately thereafter the complainant has lodged a complaint with OPs.1 & 2 through e-mails.

9. OP-3 admits receipt of cheque dated 05.02.2015 for a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- for payment through RTGS in favour of M/s.K.Amishkumar Trading Pvt. Ltd.  OP-3 also admits that the account number mentioned in the cheque is No.914020046326870.  OP-1 admitted the receipt of the above said amount for crediting to the account bearing No.914020046326870.  OP-1 claims that, the RTGS initiated by the Indian Bank on 05.02.2015 for transfer of sum of Rs.11,29,054/- was to the account bearing No.914020046326870, IFC code No.UTIB0000357.  According to OP-1 the account bearing No.914020046326870 stands in the name of M/s.Mahak Garments.  OP-1 further claims that, as the account details and IFSC code was correct, the said transaction was settled by them on 05.02.2015 itself in terms of the circular bearing No.RBI/2010-11/235 DPSS (CO) EPPD No/863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated 14.10.2010 issued by the Reserve Bank of India on RTGS/NEFT/NECS/ECS.

10. The complainant or OP-3 did not produce the copy of cheque wherein the account number of beneficiary M/s.K.Amishkumar has been mentioned.  Similarly OP-1 also did not provide us the account number of M/s.K.Amishkumar Trading Pvt. Ltd., to substantiate their contention that account number mentioned in the RTGS proceedings initiated by OP-3 Bank does not belong to Mr.K.Amishkumar Trading Pvt. Ltd.  The letter dated 29^th March 2015 written by OP-3 to complainant discloses the account number of the beneficiary M/s.K.Amishkumar Trading Pvt Ltd., as 914020046326870.  OP-3 has produced RTGS/NEFT form pertaining to the case on hand which contains the name of sender, account number of the sender, beneficiary details including account number, name of the beneficiary, name of the Bank, IFSC code details of payment as well as the mobile number of the beneficiary.  In the said form at annexure R-1 produced by the OP-3 the account number is mentioned as 914020046326870.  OP-1 claims that on the basis of the account number furnished by OP-3, the amount was credited to the M/s.Mahak Garments whose account number is 914020046326870.

11. It is pertinent to note here that, the OP-1 Bank has credited the said amount of Rs.11,29,054/- to account No. 914020046326870, standing in the name of M/s.Mahak Garments, only on the basis of the account number, without verifying the name of beneficiary as provided by the OP-3 Bank.  In the RTGS/NEFT form OP-3 has provided to OP-1 Bank not only the Bank number but also the name of party including the mobile number of the party.  It is evident that OP-1 Bank without verifying the name of the beneficiary, has credited the said amount to the account of M/s.Mahak Garments, only on the basis of the account number.  OPs.1 & 2 claims that the said transaction was settled by them in terms of the circular bearing No.RBI/2010-11/235 DPSS (CO) EPPD No/863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated 14.10.2010 issued by the Reserve Bank of India on RTGS/NEFT/NECS/ECS.  OPs.1 & 2 except claiming that they have acted in accordance with the terms of the above mentioned circular issued by Reserve Bank of India, did not produce the copy of the same to ascertain as to what actually is provided in the said circular and what are all precautions and verification OP-1 was expected to take, before crediting the amount to the account of M/s.Mahak Garments.  No doubt account bearing No.914020046326870 stands in the name of M/s.Mahak Garments as could be seen from the extract of the Bank account produced by OP-1.  In the RTGS/NEFT form at Annexure R-1 the conditions for accepting the fund transfer have been provided.  It is stated in instruction column that all payment instructions should be checked carefully by the remitter.  From the submission made by OPs.1 & 2 it is evident that the above mentioned amount of Rs.11,29,054/- has been remitted only verifying account number and not the name of the beneficiary mentioned in the RTGS/NEFT form.  The name of the beneficiary and his mobile number has been mentioned in the inputs furnished to the OP-1 Bank.  However, OP-1 Bank was not diligent to verify the name of the beneficiary before crediting amount to the account of M/s.Mahak Garments.

12. As stated above, though OP-1 claims that, they have settled said transaction in terms of the above mentioned RBI circular, but did not produce the copy of the said circular to find out as to whether they have followed the terms and conditions scrupulously, mentioned in the said circular, while settling the said transaction.  Thus, it is apparent on the face of it that OP-1 has committed deficient while crediting the said amount to the above mentioned account number, without verifying the name of the beneficiary.  Though the mobile number of the beneficiary is provided by the OP-3 Bank, OP-1 has not bothered to verify as to whether the account number provided by OP-3 really belongs to beneficiary mentioned therein.  It is because of the negligence on the part of OP-1 and due to deficient service on the part of OPs.1 & 2 the said amount of Rs.11,29,054/- has been remitted to the account of wrong beneficiary instead in favour of the actual beneficiary M/s.K.Amish Kumar Trading Pvt Ltd.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant was made to loose a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- on account of deficient services on the part of OPs.1 & 2.  From the non production of copy of the above mentioned circular issued by RBI, an inference can be drawn that OPs.1 & 2 have not scrupulously followed guidelines given in the said circular, in settling the transaction in question.

13. The contention of OPs.1 & 2 is that, the matter involves complicated question of law and facts does not hold water in view of the discussions made above.  We are also not inclined to accept the contention of OPs.1 & 2 that they cannot be held liable to answer the claim of the complainant since he is not the customer of their Bank.  The role of OP-3 ends moment necessary inputs have been furnished to OPs.1 & 2 for settling the transaction as per the inputs provided by the complainant.  Therefore, we don’t find OP-3 in any way responsible for the deficiency of service committed by OPs.1 & 2.  Therefore, the case against OP-3 is liable to be dismissed.

14. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that, OPs.1 & 2 shall have to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a from 05.02.2015 till the date of realization.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

  15. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,29,054/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Fifty Four only) to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a from 05.02.2015 till the date of realization together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

OPs.1 & 2 shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

The complaint as against OP-3 is dismissed.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 13^th day of February 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 17.08.2015.

1. Sri.Waheed UZ Zama.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties-1 & 2 dated 04.01.2016.

1. Sri.Shekar Dey.  

Documents produced by the Opposite parties.1 & 2:

    Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-3 – Nil

Document produced by the Opposite party-3:

    MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

       Vln*