Delhi

North

CC/56/2017

ISHWAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

B.R. SHARMA & SUMIT KAUSHIK

03 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.:56/2017

                                                In the matter of

Ms. Ishwar Sharma

W/o Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma,

125 SFS Flats, Mall Apartment,

Mall Road, Delh-110054.                              …                 Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

Punjab National Bank

Through its Chief Manager,

Branch at Rivera Apartment,

Mall Road, Delhi.                                          …            Opposite Party No.1

 

Punjab National Bank,

Through its Chief Manager,

Branch at Civil Lines, Delhi.                          …            Opposite Party No.2

ORDER

03/08/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

 

1. the complainant is maintaining a savings bank account with the OP-1 branch at Rivera Apartment, Mall Road, Delhi and is banking with them since long;
2. the complainant, for the urgent need of her son, went to OP No.1 branch at Mall Road on 7-2-2017 for sending foreign exchange remittance of CAD 20,000/-. However, the official of the said branch at Mall Road was having no knowledge as to what to do and complainant was directed to go to Civil Lines Branch, respondent No.2 herein, for the said purpose.
3. the complainant, being a lady, senior citizen of 68 years of age, unable to walk properly, could, however, able to reach to the OP No.2 Civil Lines Branch from where one of the concerned officer sitting on the 1" floor gave her the necessary forms and again directed her to submit the same to OP No.1 Mall Road Branch.
4. The Complainant again with all difficulty reached to OP No. 1 Mall Road Branch although respondent could have managed all these documents from one branch as we are in the age of internet banking and details of complainant account position, balance, signatures etc. can be viewed and verified from the computer attached to all the OP branches, being the CBS Branches.
5. the suffering and harassment of the complainant did not end here. Even upon complainant's asking, none of the official of the OP branch told her as to what is the exchange rate of Indian rupee versus Canadian dollar on which complainant will get transfer of foreign exchange and a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh forty thousand only) was debited from complainant savings Bank account arbitrarily and without informing to the complainant which came to her knowledge through her husband in the night of 08-02-2017.
6. an e-mail was received by the complainant on 8-2-2017, stating that the remittance is under process. However, no remittance could reach to its destination as enquired by the complainant from her son at Canada. The complainant called the concerned official of OP No. 2 at Civil Lines branch on phone and tried to find out the fate of remittance and exchange rate thereof. The officer of the OP 2 was very rude and even did not connect complainant to the concerned officer and rebuked the complainant by saying, "this is a bank, do not enquire, if you have sent the remittance, it must have been remitted".
7. It is obvious that the concerned officer of the OP No.2 did not have any courtesy normally which is expected from an officer of the bank and even did not bother to find out the status of the remittance and rate thereof. When the complainant was telling that the remittance has not yet reached into the account of the beneficiary, her son at Canada. The concerned officer of the OP, on enquiry, refused to disclose the status and the rate of exchange which they are bound to inform to the customer. This was more necessary for the complainant as a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- was debited to her account which was illegal and arbitrary.
8. again on 10-2-2017, morning, the complainant enquired from her son if the remittance has gone in his account who stated that the amount of CAD 19967/- has been received. Therefore, it is evident that the foreign remittance was received by the beneficiary on 9-2-2017/10-2-2017 in Canada. The complainant again went to OP No.1 at Mall Road branch and asked the concerned officer as to what the exchange rate was and how much amount ought to have been debited in the complainant account. The concerned officer at OP 1, Mall Road branch was having no answer and told that if any amount debited is excess, would be refunded to the complainant in her account. The complainant was again directed to go to OP No. 2 Civil Line branch for any query in this regard.
9. the complainant went to OP No. 2 Civil line branch and came to know that exchange rate has been charged @ Rs.51.44 P per CAD whereas the exchange rate on 9-2-2017 was around Rs.50-82P for whole the day which can be seen from the internet and was available there.

 

2.       It has been alleged that the  OP has no legal right to charge @ Rs.51.44P when the exchange rate was 50-82 P and as such Respondents have no right to debit a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- in the savings bank account of the complainant. The respondent ought to have debited a sum of Rs.10,16,400/- (Rupees ten lakhs sixteen thousand four hundred only) and not Rs.10,40,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent are liable to refund/credit a sum of Rs.23,600/-. However, the respondent bank, later on refunded a sum of Rs.8301/- as can be seen from their letter dated 20th February, 2017 (in response to the legal notice) received by the complainant subsequently. Therefore, the respondent is liable to refund a sum of Rs.15,299/- (Rupees fifteen thousand two hundred ninety nine only) by applying the exchange rate as Rs.50.82 P. Remittance such as complainant's remittance was urgent in nature as required by her son for making some payment urgently and could have been remitted on the same day in the computer age whereas there was a delay of 3 days for which respondents have no explanation. It amount to a deficiency in the service of the bank as the complainant savings bank account was debited on 08-02-2017 and it was remitted on 10-02-2017.

 

3.       It has been alleged that it is a matter of record that when the OP Bank has e-mail ID of the complainant, they could have informed on the email with regard to the remittance. The OP Bank never informed the complainant on her email as to the fate of the remittance and also as to the amount of exchange rate charged thereof. This is another gross deficiency in the service of the OP Bank. The OP is a Public Sector Bank and they are supposed to work under a full transparency system and act diligently and promptly as the electronic transfers of funds are very fast and communication can be given on the email available with the OP Bank. Therefore, OPs were not only negligent in discharging their duties but it amounts to deficiency in the service of the OP bank. From this acts, not only the complainant has faced a great amount of harassment and humiliation but this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which complainant claim a sum of Rs.10,000/- which OP are liable to pay to the complainant.

4.       It has further been stated by the Complainant that the complainant earlier also suffered a loss of about Rs.26,811/- while sending remittance to Canada to her son wherein the OPs were gross negligent for not remitting the amount without any reason known to the complainant till date. The complainant sent the letter dated 21-10-2016 to the OP No.1 which is un- responded till date. It has been pointed out by the Complainant that the complainant followed the same procedure as stated above for sending the remittance of CAD 18000/- to her son at Canada and for that purpose in the similar manner, her account was debited for a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- on 15-9-2016 illegally and arbitrarily as exchange rate on that day was Rs.50.60P per CAD. However, no amount was remitted to the beneficiaries and the complainant account was credited for a sum of Rs.8,98,898/- on 14-10-2016 and a sum of Rs.10,291/- was credited on 22-9-2016. Thus, a total amount of Rs.9,09,189/- was credited and therefore the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.26811/-, the reason of the same she is not aware of and it was neither informed to her till date. Not only this, the complainant is also entitled interest @ 12% on this amount for the period, it was not credited to her account. It has also been stated by the Complainant that this remittance was very urgent as the complainant's son was to book a flat at Toronto at Canada and with the result, he lost a sum of CAD 1500/- which comes to around Rs.77,000/-. The respondents are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.77,000/- in addition to Rs.26811/- and interest as above said.

5.       In the matter of year 2016, the Complainant had sent a legal notice dated 10-2-2017, calling upon the OP bank to credit a sum of Rs.23,600/- in the account of the complainant. Instead of crediting the same in the account of the complainant, the OP No.1 sent a very vague and evasive reply which is not expected from a Public Sector Bank. However, even if a sum of Rs. 1495/-, Rs.595/- and Rs.829/-, on account of Swift Charges, Commission and service tax respectively, which comes to total of Rs.2919/- as stated in the said letter, the OP bank is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,380/- Plus Rs.10,000/- for harassment, humiliation (Rs.15,299/- (-) Rs2,919/- Rs.12,380/- (Rupees twelve thousand three hundred eight only) along with interest @ 12% per annum. The O P banks are liable to give a credit of Rs.26,811/- in the savings bank account of the complainant as a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- was debited in her savings bank account on 15-09-2016 and a sum of Rs.8,98,898/- and Rs.10,291/- was credited in her account on 14-10-2016 and 22-09-2016 respectively without sending any remittance of CAD Rs.18,000/- The complainant is yet to know as to why the remittance could not be remitted to the beneficiaries. The OP is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the period from 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016 on a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- and interest on this amount of Rs.26,811/- from 15-09-2016 till payment. The OP Bank is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.77,000/- on account of the loss suffered by the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum. That the cause of action arise on all the dates and finally on 10-02-2017 when the complainant demanded the refund of the amount and the same was not refunded by the respondents. This amounts to deficiency in the service of the respondents and as such they are liable to refund the amount as per the facts and circumstances mentioned above. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint praying that:

1. the opposite parties/respondents be directed to refund/credit a sum of Rs. 1,16,641-00 to the complainant.
2. the OPs be directed to refund the said amount along with 12% interest per annum.
3. the OPs may directed to pay a sum of Rs10,000/- for the mental tension and harassment caused to the complainant.
4. the cost of litigation may please be awarded in favour of the complainant.
5. any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may please be awarded in favour of the complainant.

 

(6)      Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response, the OPs have filed joint reply contesting that:-

1. the contents of para no.1 of the complaint are matter of record, hence need no reply.
2. the contents of para no.2 of the complaint are matter of record.
3. the contents of para no.3 of the complaint are admitted upto the extent that the complainant approached to the opposite party no.1 since the opposite party no.1 is not authorised for foreign exchange remittance so the officials of the Opposite Party No.1 advised the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2 where the Complainant was properly attended and provided the necessary documents. Rest of the contents of para under reply are wrong and denied
4. the contents of para no.4 of the complaint wrong, false and specifically denied that the complainant is not informed about the exchange rate of Indian rupees versus Canadian dollar. All the necessary information was provided to the complainant to satisfy her quarries and thereafter, the complainant given authority to the opposite party to debit the necessary amount from her own account by filing the Form No.A-2 to deduct the amount which was to be remitted in the account of her alleged son. It is specifically denied that an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant arbitrary and without information to the complainant. It is also denied that it came to her knowledge through her husband in the night of 08.02.2017. It is also denied that the complainant came to know regarding the fact from toll free number s the complainant came to know regarding the fact from toll free number as the complainant was well with knowledge regarding amount which was to be debited from her account as she has specifically authorised the opposite parties to debit the amount from her account by completing the formalities for the said purpose.
5. the contents of para no.5 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. it is duty of the opposite parties to inform its customers regarding the status of the transaction and due to said purpose, email was sent to the complainant so the complainant cannot be allowed to make false and frivolous grounds that the amount was deducted from her account without their knowledge or there was no knowledge to the complainant regarding the amount debited from her account, etc. as and when the complainant enquired regarding the status of remittance, the status of the same was always properly informed to her but she is making false and baseless allegation in the para under reply, which are baseless. All the officials of the opposite parties are duty bound to fulfil their obligations as per rules and regulations and they are humble and courteous to their customers so there is no question arise that the officials of the opposite parties did not bother regarding the alleged quarries  made by the complainant. All the allegations made in the para under reply regarding debited entry of the amount are wrong debited and as denied with the amount authorization consent of the complainant.
6. the contents of para no.6 of the complaint are matter of record. As far as the amount of 33 dollars less received by the beneficiary, it is to be clarified that the foreign bank which is involved in completion of transaction, used to debit its charges and the opposite parties have no concerned regarding the charges taken/ deducted by the foreign banks.
7. the contents of para no.8 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied upto the extent that which have been mentioned by the complainant without knowledge and due to the said reason, the facts are correct. It is also denied that the opposite parties are liable to refund an amount of Rs.15,299/- as alleged by the complainant. As per exchange rate prevailing in the market on 09.02.2017 was Rs.52/- approximately for 1 Canadian Dollar and it was the rate which was to be paid by the remitter so it is specifically denied that the exchange rate was Rs.50.82 for whole day. as far as the rate of foreign exchange is concerned, it used to vary on second basis are number of times even in an hour. The opposite parties have charged the amount in the form of exchange rate as per governed by the market force at particular time and it cannot be blamed to the opposite parties for up and down for the exchange rates at any time. Opposite parties were authorised to debit an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- from the account of the complainant. The calculation made by the complainant is wrong and after making all the adjustment, the opposite parties have also refunded an amount of Rs.8,301/- to the account of the complainant. Opposite parties are not reasonable at all to refund the amount of Rs.15,299/- as allegedly claimed by the complainant. The exchange rate which has been allegedly mentioned by the complainant is not correct. The sheets of exchange rate of foreign remittance have also been filed which used to be as base rate for a day and the same is used to change on seconds basis.
8. the contents of para no.9 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. Even in the age of computer as alleged by the complainant, the basic formalities are to be completed for using the facility of the computer, which are manual in nature basically. It is specifically denied that opposite party no.1 has no legal right to debit a sum of Rs.10,40,000/- on 08.02.2017 from the account of the complainant arbitrarily and upon presumption. The complainant has specifically authorised to the opposite parties to do the same so the complainant cannot be allowed to make false, frivolous and baseless allegations upon the officials of the opposite parties.
9. the contents of para no.10 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. The amount was debited from the account of the complainant on 08.02.2017 and thereafter, the amount and necessary information was sent to the back office (the office which is specifically involved in the activities of remitting the amount in respect of the foreign transactions) of the opposite parties and thereafter, the amount sent within time to the beneficiary which was admittedly received by him on 09.02.2017 so it is specifically denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is making false, frivolous and baseless allegations upon the officials of the opposite parties for the reasons best known to her.
10. the contents of para no.11 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. It is wrong and specifically denied that the opposite parties have never informed the complainant on her email, etc. etc. or as to the amount of exchange rates charged thereof. All the information provided to the complainant to her satisfaction and the necessary information were provided to her on the email bhagatrajsharma@yahoo.co.in' as provided by the complainant Smt. Ishwar Sharma so the allegations made in the para under reply are wrong and denied. It is also denied that there was any gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. the contents of para no.12 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. All the averments made in this para are like allegation in the nature. Being the public sector bank are the duties and responsibilities of the officials are being governed by rules, regulation and laws framed by the Govt. Reserve Bank of India and bank itself so working system of the opposite parties is quite transparent and there is no deficiency in service in discharging the duties of the officials of the opposite parties.
12. the contents of para no.13 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. Due to unwarranted litigation, officials of the opposite parties are felling harassment because even after providing the services to the customers to their satisfaction the officials again duty bound to face the baseless litigations based on the false and baseless grounds.
13. the contents of para no.14 of the complaint are wrong, false specifically denied. It is wrong and specifically denied that the complainant has suffered any loss due to any act of the opposite parties. The opposite parties remitted the amount as per direction of complainant. The amount was submitted to the account which was specifically provided by the complainant to the officials of the opposite parties. After enquiry, it came to know that the account number, which was provided by the complainant to the opposite parties, was wrong and due to said reason, the amount could not remitted to the beneficiary. At no point of time, the complainant has disclosed the said fact that the amount could not remitted because of the wrong account number provided by her to the officials of the opposite parties. Instead of feeling sorry for incorrect information, she is again blaming to the officials of the opposite parties for her own wrongs as far as amount debited from her account is concerned and the amount credited to her account is concerned, the details of the same is as under:

Amount debited is	Rs.936000.00
Amount refunded to A/c	Rs.10291.00
Amount refunded to A/c	Rs.898898.00
Bank Commission	Rs.1327.00
Swift charges	Rs.575.00
Service Tax on foreign exchange sale purchase	Rs.767.00

 

The amount of Rs.8,98,898/- refunded to the complainant was at her request that she does not want to send it again to the beneficiary and the amount which was refunded to the complainant was calculated on the basis of exchange rate prevailing on the very same day when the amount was refunded/credited to the complainant. Thereafter, there is no matter of any loss as alleged by the complainant nor there is any reason of any entitlement of interest as allegedly claimed by her. The amount as per calculation was refunded to her account without any deduction or without any loss to the complainant. Any loss which has been calculated by the complainant is because of the fact of change of exchange rate in respect of foreign remittance prevailing on very same day or time in the market.

14. The contents of para no.15 of the complaint are wrong, false and specifically denied. The facts mentioned in the para under reply are false, frivolous and baseless. It is also submitted that the opposite parties are not liable to make any payment as alleged by the complainant in the para under reply.

7.       Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit and has also led arguments. Accordingly, the allegations levelled against the OP have been examined in view of the averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the parties and it has been observed that the Complainant has alleged deficiency upon the OPs of citing two instances i.e. first on 15.09.2016 and second on 07.02.2017. therefore, each of the instance has been scrutinized separately to ascertain deficiency in service in each case.

8.       Regarding allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs at the  first instance on 15.09.2016 when the Complainant applied for remitting CAD 18,000/- to her son at Canada, it has been seen that :-

a. the money could not be remitted but the bank debited Rs.9,36,000/- from complainant account on the pretext of remitting the money to Canada and thereafter credited Rs.8,98,898/- only.

b.   Thereafter, on enquiry of the complainant about non-credit of full amount,  the bank credited only Rs.10,291/- and did not clarify about non-credit of Rs.26,811/ inspite of  the written request of the complainant vide letter dated 21.10.2016.

c.   In Para 14 of the reply filed by the OPs, the following details of this transaction have been given citing the reason that the account number of the beneficiary provided by the Complainant was wrong and therefore the amount could not be remitted:-

Amount debited from complainant’s account	Rs.936000.00
Amount refunded to A/c	Rs.10291.00
Amount refunded to A/c	Rs.898898.00
Bank Commission	Rs.1327.00
Swift charges	Rs.575.00
Service Tax on foreign exchange sale purchase	Rs.767.00

 

d.       On the clarification of the OPs for not crediting Rs.26811/-, the Complainant has argued that the OPs have never informed her about the wrong details of the account number of the beneficiary and  due to non- remittance of the money, her son/beneficiary had to face the loss of sum of CAD 1,500/- due to his failure to book the flat.

e.       The OPs have not filed any documents to prove that the fact of wrong details of beneficiary was intimated/conveyed to the Complainant either through email or SMS. Besides in Para 14 of the reply, the OPs are also silent about the reasons of non-replying the letter dated 21.10.2016 to the Complainant in this regard. The silence on the part of the OPs on this context is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations that no reply to letter dated 21.10.2016 was sent to the Complainant.

f.       So far as the reason of deduction of charges of Rs.26811/- given by the OPs relating to the remittance of CAD 18000/- is concerned, the bank has failed to prove as to why full amount was not paid/credited to the account of the complainant specifically when the remittance was not carried out?  This clearly demonstrates the deficiency of service.

g.       Regarding allegation of loss of 1500 CAD to the beneficiary, the Complainant has not filed any evidence proving this loss due to the deficiency of service by the OPs and therefore, no deficiency is attributed to the OPs about this allegation.

9.       Regarding second instance of 07.02.2017 when the Complainant interacted with the OPs for remittance of CAD 20,000/- to her son, it has been seen that Rs.10,40,000/- were debited from Complainant’s account on 08.02.2017 and the amount was received by the beneficiary on 9/10 February 2017. However, Rs.8,301/- was credited back by the OPs to the Complainant’s account. It has been seen that :-

i.       At this time, the Complainant has alleged wrong charging of the exchange rates by the OPs which is not supported by any documentary evidence

ii.      The bank has suitably replied to the Complainant on 20.02.2017 in this regard. Besides the bank has also filed copies of sheets indicating foreign exchange rates prevailing at that time which appears satisfactory.

iii.     Besides exchange rate, the reply of the OPs on bank commission/charges also appears satisfactory.

iv.      The complainant has also failed to prove any discrepancy in the foreign exchange rates filed by the OPs.

v.       No deficiency of service has been observed in this remittance.

 

10.     In view of the above discussions, we  hold that the OPs have been deficient in providing service to the Complainant when she interacted with the bank on 15.09.2016 as per observations discussed at para 8 (a) to (g)  and the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OPs in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OPs to pay the complainant:-

I.        Rs.26,811/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven Only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 22.09.2016 till the date of the payment;

II.       Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

11.     It is clarified that if the above said amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay simple interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

12.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                               HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                                                  Member                                                                                    Member       

                                          DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                       DCDRC-1 (North)

                                                           

DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

President

DCDRC-1 (North)