Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/140/2023

Union Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahdeo Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Upma Bhalla Adv.

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/140/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	27/06/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	31/07/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Union Bank of India, SCO 66-67, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

Sahdeo Sharma son of Ram Chander Sharma, Resident of House No.2192, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Ms. Upma Bhalla, Advocate for the Appellant.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/240/2019, in the following terms:-

“8. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is party allowed. The OP is directed to refund amount of Rs. (One lakh) only to the Complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of 25th of September 2018 till the date of its actual repayment to the Complainant.

9. This order be complied with by the OP(s), within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.”

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that having planned to take the distributorship of Patanjali Products, to earn his livelihood, he applied for the same and after conversation, was asked to deposit ₹1 lakh towards refundable security vide e-mail dated 21.09.2018 in the account details of which were mentioned in the said e-mail itself (Annexure C-5). The Complainant went to Sector 8 Branch of the Opposite Party and transferred a sum of ₹1 lakh through NEFT in the account as instructed in the e-mail dated 21.09.2018. Having not received any response from Patanjali office, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and found that the aforesaid amount has gone to the account of one Mr.Pintoo Paswan, Central Bank of India, Begu Sarai, Bihar (IFSC Code CBIN0283945), instead of Patanjali Ayurveda Limited, Central Bank of India, Haridwar, Uttrakhand (IFSC Code CBIN0280274). Eventually, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and even the Ombudsman of Banks at Chandigarh, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

4.      Upon notice, the Opposite Party resisted the consumer complaint admitting that the Complainant approached them for NEFT/RTGS vide Cheque No. 10023064 dated 24.09.2018. It was pleaded that they correctly filled up the IFSC code, Account Number and customer details of the beneficiary, which were duly provided by the Complainant, and the said amount was transferred through RTGS in the name of beneficiary and if the amount was not credited in the account of the beneficiary then the receiver bank can disclose the reason that why said amount was transferred in another account, but the Complainant did not made the said bank (Central Bank of India) a party to the Complaint. When the Complainant raised his grievance the bank official sent email to Central Bank of India to lien the payment and to reverse the amount in the account of Complainant. It was asserted that the Opposite Party has immediately informed the receiver bank to lien the amount and further requested to return the amount to Complainant, but if the receiver bank not do so, then how the OP-Bank be fastened with the liability to refund the amount. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      It is the case of the Appellant/ Opposite Party that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite Party vociferously argued that the Ld. Lower Commission while allowing the Consumer Complaint ignored the fact that Appellant Bank has written the details strictly in accordance with the details provided by the Complainant and there was neither any error in writing the account number or IFSC code and since the Destination Bank was the Central Bank of India, it was only the said bank which could throw light on the factual matrix of the case. However, per material available on record, we do not find any substance in this limb of argument, in as much as, Appellant/Opposite Party was to transfer a sum of ₹1 lakh through NEFT in account of the beneficiary situated at Haridwar, Uttrakhand, but admittedly the said amount was transferred to an account of Mr.Pintoo Paswan, Central Bank of India, Begusarai, Bihar, which per se tantamount to deficiency in service.

 

11.      Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party further raised a plea that the Ld. Lower Commission remained under the impression that the Appellant Bank had directly transferred the amount to the account holder of the Central Bank of India; whereas, it was not so, because as a matter of practice, the amount is first transferred to the concerned Bank and thereafter, the destination Bank transfers the amount to its account holder. Moreover, the Central Bank of India i.e. the destination bank, which actually credited the amount, has not been arrayed as party to the lis. However, we are not inclined to accept this limb of argument as the same does not hold any water because that the Respondent/ Complainant by virtue of being a consumer of the Appellant/OP Bank had directly dealt with it and it was the Appellant/OP Bank who dealt with the Central Bank of India. Thus by any stretch of imagination, it was only the Appellant Bank who is competent to deal with the designation Bank in case there was any mistake/negligence in transferring the amount to other person instead of its beneficiary. Moreover, being at the receiving end, it would have been very arduous exercise for a gullible consumer like the Complainant to approach and get benefit from other Bank which is situated at a far away place and with whom he had no dealing. Referring to the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India vide No.RBI/2010-11/235, DPSS(Co)EPPD No/863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated 14.10.2010, October 14, 2010, Cl. 5(viii) of which categorically provides, “The above notwithstanding, in cases where it is found that credit has been afforded to a wrong account, Banks need to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance Redressal mechanism to reverse such credits and set right the mistake and /or return the transaction to the originating bank. This particularly needs to function very efficiently and proactively till such time customers are comfortable with the new arrangements”, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly observed that the onus was on the Bank to reverse such credit promptly to redress the grievances of the Complainant and set right the mistake/or return the transaction to the originating bank, which the Appellant/OP Bank failed to do and thus bank cannot escape from the liability of making good the loss to the Complainant. In this backdrop, no case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded qua this issue by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

31^st July, 2023                                

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”