New Complaint No.221 of 2023.
Date of Institution:26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:243 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 31.05.2018.
Date of order:19.01.2024.
Mehakbir Singh Khehra Son of Lakhbir Singh, resident of Village Sangrai, P.O Panj Graian, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
…..Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Sandeep Singh, Manager, State Bank of India, Branch opposite BUC College, Jalandhar Road, Batala and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
2. Bodh Raj, Clerk, State Bank of India, Branch opposite BUC College, Jalandhar Road, Batala and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Inderjit Vaid, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Mehakbir Singh Khehra, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against State Bank of India Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant having account bearing No. 55158981154 in the bank of the opposite parties in their branch at Batala. It is pleaded that the complainant has made a plan to migrate abroad Canada on study basis in the year of 2017. The complainant had paid fees of two semesters to college at Canada. The complainant had also sent GIC Money to Canadian Govt. So, the complainant had given instructions of Scotia Bank Canada to the opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that complainant has also handed over transit form of foreign currency of 10,250 dollars to the opposite party with signature. It is further pleaded that but when the opposite party No. 2 filled bank form, he made an error in surname of the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant told about error to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, but both replied that it is our official work you have signed on the official form, we will liable if your money will not be transit to Scotia Bank Canada. After it the complainant and his father left the bank on the assurance of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant shocked when he received massage from Scotia Bank Canada that money of the complainant transferred by the opposite parties have not accepted by Scotia Bank Canada by remarks "the name on the account provided in the wire instruction does not match our records". The complainant immediately arranged separate amount and transferred GIC money to Scotia Bank Canada to get admission of complainant in Canada. It is further pleaded that thus due to the negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant got loss of Rs.25,000/- in transfer the 2nd amount to Scotia Bank Canada. It is further pleaded that complainant has made complaint to higher authority of the opposite parties, but the complainant received message from higher authority that employees suitably counseled to provide suitable responses to the customer’s quarries. But higher authority have not taken any action against the opposite parties for their negligent act and not fulfilled loss of the complainant, occurred due to intentional mistake of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that infact the opposite parties have made error in the surname of the complainant intentionally because the father of the complainant have made complaint of the opposite party No.1 when he issued life insurance policy after forging the signature of the complainant's father. It is further pleaded that father of the complainant have also made complaint to the higher authority of the opposite parties as the opposite parties have deducted Rs.2000/- as tax more than from tax rate fixed by the Govt. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- loss due to the negligence of the opposite parties and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, harassment and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. It is pleaded that the present complaint is defective in nature as the opposite parties are paid employees of State Bank of India and have not acted in their personal capacity, but in discharge of their official duty. Hence, it is a cardinal principle of law that the principles can be sued for the acts of the employees of any alleged action, but the employees cannot be sued while discharging their official duties, as such the present complaint is defective in nature and against the principles of law. So, it is liable to be dismissed at this score only. It is further pleaded that the matter involves complex questions of law and fact as per the allegations leveled in the complaint and is not ad-judicable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and triable by Civil Courts. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Neither there is cause of action arisen to the complainant nor pleaded by the complainant in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is false, frivolous in nature, without any substantive evidence and is liable to be dismissed by invoking the provisions of Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the replying opposite parties as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the present Commission cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of management of State Bank of India. It is further pleaded that higher authorities of State Bank of India had made a minute investigation in the matter and did not find any lapse on the part of their employees. The present complaint is malafide motivated and is a gross misuse of process of law. The complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts from the Hon'ble Commission. Hence, the complainant has not come to the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 got filed the data in the computer as per the Overseas Remittance/Application cum Declaration Form and gave the print out to the complainant and asked him to check it and sign if correct. The complainant checked the documents carefully and signed the same after admitting the contents mentioned in the Overseas Remittance/Application cum Declaration Form. Infact, the bank form was filled by the complainant himself and the complainant put his signatures before going through the contents filled in the columns of bank form. Hence, the opposite party No. 2 cannot be held responsible for negligent act of the complainant as alleged. It is further pleaded that the money of the complainant transferred by the opposite parties have not accepted by Scotia Bank Canada on the ground that name of the account provided in the wire instruction does not match with their record. The Scotia Bank Canada has further advised the complainant "Kindly follow up with your financial institution as your funds have been returned to the account where they were originally wired from" "ONCE CORRECTED, PLEASE RESEND YOUR WIRE TRANSFER SO THAT YOU MAY COMPLETE FUNDING PROCESS FOR YOUR (SSGP) INVESTMENT ACCOUNT". It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant could have send the amount to the Scotia Bank Canada after filling the correct surname of the candidate. The story as propounded by the complainant in this complaint of the complainant is malafide motivated, baseless, imaginary, concocted and without any force.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of Lakhbir Singh Khehra S/o Shingara Singh alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Singh Goindi, (Branch Manager) and Bodh Raj, (Clerk of State Bank of India, Branch BUCC Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complainant.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had plan to migrate to Canada on study basis in the year 2017and to pay the fees, the Complainant had sent GIC money to Canada Govt. and complainant had handed over transit form of foreign currency of 10,250 dollars with signature to opposite party No.2 but opposite party No.2 made error in the form which was pointed out by the complainant to both the opposite parties but was not corrected by the opposite parties. However, the complainant received a message from Scotia Bank Canada that amount transferred by opposite parties was not accepted by Scotia Bank with remarks "the name on the account provided in the wire instruction does not match our records". Complainant had immediately sent GIC money through some other source and in the process he had suffered loss of Rs.25,000/-. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that Bank Manager and Clerk have been arrayed as party instead of Bank and as such complaint is legally defective and liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is argued by the counsel for the opposite parties that complainant filled request form himself and signed the said bank form after verifying the facts and contents filled in the form and it was the negligence of the complainant himself who signed the form without verifying the contents.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on record affidavit of his father Lakhbir Singh Khehra, copy of passbook Ex.C1, copy of E-mail Ex.C2, copy of form Ex.C3, copy of details of transaction initiation Ex.C4, copy of E-mail Ex.C5, copy of complaint Ex.C6, copy of message Ex.C7 and copy of special power of attorney Ex.C8 whereas opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Sandeep Singh Goindi Branch Manager Ex.OPW-1/A, copy of application for remittance abroad E.OP-1 and copy of E-mail Ex.OP-2.
12. It is admitted fact that complainant is having account No.55158981154 with State Bank of India opposite BUC College, Jalandhar Road, Batala. It is further admitted fact that the complainant had handed over transit form of foreign currency of 10,250 dollars to the opposite parties. It is further admitted fact that the transferred amount was not accepted by the Scotia Bank Canada due to name mismatch. It is further admitted fact that complainant had sent the amount later on through some other source. The only disputed issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the mistake in the surname of the complainant in the remittance amounts to deficiency in service.
13. We have gone through the hand written form filled by the complainant wherein the spellings of the surname are correctly mentioned. However, the print out of application of remittance abroad printed by opposite parties No.1 and 2 Ex.OP-1 shows that there is mistake in the spellings of word 'Khehra' which shows that there was definitely lapse on the part of the opposite parties in discharge of their official duty on account of which the amount was not accepted by the Scotia Bank Canada and the complainant had to sent the amount through some other source. Perusal of file shows that father of the complainant has lodged complaint Ex.C1 to the higher authorities of the opposite parties but the head office of the opposite parties had not addressed the said complaint by passing any speaking order and only one message has been sent complaint attended and closed employees suitably counseled. We are of the view that the higher authorities of the Bank have also failed to take any suitable action in such glaring mistake on the part of the opposite parties while performing their official duty but perusal of record shows that complainant has not been able to prove in what manner complainant has suffered loss of Rs.25,000/- and since the present complaint has been filed by the complainant by leveling serious allegations of personal enmity with the complaint and the said pleading has not been denied specifically and we are of the view that although present complaint has not been filed in official capacity rather in personal names but since the allegations made in the complaint and evidence shows that the said mistake has taken place on account of sheer negligence on the part of opposite parties in which bank can not be made party. As such deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is fully proved.
14. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Jan. 19, 2024 Member.
*YP*
