Haryana

Kurukshetra

20/2018

sohan singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.20 of 2018.

Date of instt: 19.1.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 09.04.2019.

Sohan Singh son of Shri Ajmer Singh, resident of village Gohra, District Kaithal Mobile No. 94665-87519 now resident of D.D. Colony, House No.850, Kheri Markanda, Opposite New Bus Stand, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …..Complainant.

                        Vs.

State Bank of India, Branch Office, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

 Sh. K.K. Kaushik, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sohan Singh against State Bank of India, the opposite party.

2.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that son of complainant is living in Singapore and having passport No.2395262 and he was in dire need of money for his study and as such he demanded money to the extent of $5700 dollar from the complainant. That the complainant approached the op and requested them to transfer $5700 Singapore dollar in the back account No.1201008878 of D.B.S. Bank Ltd. and at that time, the op assured to transfer the said money in the said bank account subject to payment of its commission and GST charges and the op demanded total sum of Rs.2,79,936/- from the complainant. That the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.2,79,936/- to the op for transferring the same in the above said bank account and after making transaction in this regard from the bank account No.00000065024795745 of complainant, the op issued receipt dated 22.9.2017 bearing STRN No.0111117TS5124888 to the complainant. It is further averred that after transferring the amount, the complainant sent the receipt of the same to his son at Singapore for his convenience but he could not get released the said amount. That thereafter, the op approached the complainant for knowing the status of transfer of money but the op started to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and did not give any way to the complainant. That ultimately on 23.10.2017, the officials of the op told that the said transaction could not be completed due to “ a reference which is similar to an entity related to U.S. OFAC sanctions or SBI Singhapore compliance policy”. Thereafter, they assured that the entire amount will be transferred to the bank account of the complainant. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant found that only a sum of Rs.2,68,656/- was reversed in the bank account of the complainant and thereafter he being harassed by the op moved an application dated 24.10.2017 to the op for knowing about the deduction of Rs.11,280/-. That the op has given a false and frivolous reply to the application and has not released the amount of Rs.11,280/- to the complainant. It is further averred that due to non-receipt of the money in Singapore, the son of complainant is facing dire consequences. The complainant never asked the bank to return back the money in his account rather he is still interested to send the money to his son but the op intentionally, willfully and illegally reversed the said amount in the bank account of the complainant after deducting the amount of Rs.11,280/- which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of op. The complainant is entitled to recover the said amount of Rs.11,280/- from the op. In addition to the said amount, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.70,000/- as compensation on account of physical as well as mental harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that true and material facts are that as per the request of the complainant, the answering op has remitted a sum of Rs.2,79,936/- on 22.9.2017 being Singapore $5710 @ Rs. 48.88 + Bank commission and service charges from account of complainant. The said transaction could not be processed due to “ A reference which is similar to an entity related to U.S. OFAC sanctions or SBI Singapore compliance policy” and the amount of Rs.2,68,656/- (Singapore $5710 @ Rs.47.05) was credited/ reversed to the account of complainant on 5.10.2017. There was a difference in the amount of Rs.10449/- ($5710 @ Rs.48.88 and $5710 @ 47.05) only due to transfer to selling and transfer to buying rate on the transaction date. So, there is no deficiency in services on the part of answering op. Hence, the present complaint is based on misrepresentation and concealment of true facts as the complainant is himself aware about the rate of Singapore $ on the date of transfer and on the date of reverting the amount in question. It is further submitted that the complainant was very well aware about the day-to-day change rate of dollar i.e. difference in day-to-day rate of dollar. So, the complainant is very well known about the deduction of Rs.11,280/-. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. On the other hand, op tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the op and have perused the case file carefully.     

6.             On perusal of the file, it is clear that op has sent said amount of Rs.2,79,936/- to its branch office in India but that said amount was not sent to Singapore branch due to reason mentioned in Ex.C3 that “A reference which is similar to an entity related to U.S OFAC sanctions or SBI Singapore compliance policy and the amount of Rs.2,68,656 (Singapre $ 5710 @ Rs.47.05) was credited/ reversed to your account on 5.10.2017. There was a difference in the amount to Rs.10449/- (

7.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.11,280/- to the complainant. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. The op is liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.11,280/- from the date of order till actual realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:09.04.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.