(Delivered on 24/08/2018)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The instant appeal  is filed  against the  order of the  District Forum,  Wardha  passed in  complaint No. 83/2013 dated 07/08/2014 granting    reliefs as follows.

i.        The complaint is partly allowed.

ii.       O.P. (opposite party ) No.1 to provide Rs. 5,07,381/- to the complainant  or  to deposit  the amount  in his  account  in the span of 30 days   & incase of  failure  to provide  interest at the rate of 10% p.a.  upon the amount till the final payment  or  deposit.

iii.      The O.P.No. 1 to provide Rs. 15,000/- to the  complainant  for physical and mental harassment .

iv.      The O.P.No. 2 to  recover the amount  mistakenly  withdrawn  by the  wrong person  and  return it to the O.P.No. 1.

v.       The complaint is   dismissed against  the O.P.Nos. 3&4.

2.      The complainant  in short filed the complaint   against the  O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 as under,

a.      The complainant  is a  businessman  selling motor cycles which  he purchases  from  O.P.No. 4 and sends the money to O.P.No. 4’s  account  in Axis Bank  at Chandrapur.  He has an account with  O.P.No. 1.He had sent  Rs. 2,00,000/- on 18/12/2012 , Rs. 1,26,631/- on  07/01/2013, Rs. 49,650/- on 14/01/2013, Rs. 32,500/- on 19/01/2013 and Rs. 98,500/- on 22/01/2013 totaliing to Rs. 5,07,381/- to  O.P.No. 4. He sent the money  to O.P.No. 4 through  O.P.No. 1 by   RTGS (Real Time Gross  Settlement )  by properly filling  the form with  IFSC Code, name , branch  of  O.P.No. 4. However,  while filling the form of the above  RTGS request a  mistake  took place of  few digits  in  writing  the  correct Account Number of O.P.No. 4.

b.      The complainant  got information  from  the O.P.No. 4 that  it did not  receive any amount sent by the  complainant.  He made enquires with the  O.P.No. 1 when  he was informed  that the sent amount got deposited  in the wrong account. He therefore, repeatedly  requested  the O.P.No. 1 to return his amount  to him. In the last  he sent a  notice to  O.P.No. 1 on  23/02/2013 . The complainant came to know that  the amount  sent  as above was deposited  in the  branch of O.P.No. 2 in the account of  O.P.No. 3 through  O.P.No. 1.

c.       The complainant  also sent a notice  to O.P.Nos. 2&3. However, the O.Ps. did not respond to  his request.  He found that  the O.P.No. 3 finding  the  deposit of  such  amount  in its  account  due to  wrong  recording of  bank account number  withdrew  the amount.

d.      The complainant  therefore, claiming  deficiency in service on behalf of  O.P.No. 1 and also  carelessness  on behalf of  O.P.Nos. 2&3 filed a complaint  before the learned Forum with a prayer  to  direct the  O.P.No. 1 to  provide him  the amount of Rs. 5,07,381/- with interest at the  rate of 18% from December-2012 till  final disposal  of the complaint  and also to  get  appropriate amount from O.P.No. 1,2&3. Further requested to provide him Rs. 15,000/- for physical and mental harassment from O.P. Nos. 1 to 3.

3.      On notice the O.P. Nos. 1&2 filed written version. However, the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 remained  absent  in spite of proper service and were declared  exparte.

a.      The O.P.No. 1 submitted that  the complainant  filed  wrong  information  in the  RTGS application & hence,  it is  his carelessness. The O.P. No. 1 claimed  that  though  the IFSC Number of the branch was correct still the account number was wrong. Hence,  the amount  sent  through  RTGS got  deposited  in the account of  O.P.No. 3 in place of  O.P.No. 4. The O.P.No. 1 claimed that  when the amount  is transferred  from one bank to another  the transfer depends on  the account number as per the directions of the Reserve Bank. Thus,  when the  account number was wrong the amount  got  diverted to different account. Hence,  denied  any  deficiency in service.

b.      The O.P.No. 2 denied the allegations  and  claimed that  the O.P.No. 2 was getting the amount  in the account of  the O.P.No.3 which was  withdrawn by  the O.P.No. 3. In this case  O.P.No. 2 has  not committed  any  mistake. Hence, denied carelessness . The O.P.No. 2 submitted that  the wrongly  informed account  on the  RTGS Form is of  O.P.No. 3 which had  Rs. 4253.01 in its account on 29/01/2013.Hence,  a lean is  marked  upon it. The amount  so deposited can be reversed  as per the  directions of Reserve Bank. Hence,  requested  to dismiss the complaint against  the O.P.No. 2.

4.      The learned Forum held that  the complainant  is a consumer of O.P.No. 1 and was  sending  the amount in the account of  O.P.No. 4 with  recording of  proper  name, bank and  IFSC Code of the  O.P.No. 4.

          The learned Forum further  held that  the O.P.No. 2 is also  providing  the service as is  concerned with the  transfer of money from  O.P.No. 1.  The amount is  acquired by the O.P.No. 3 which was wrongly deposited in his account and was  meant for  O.P.No. 4.

          The  learned Forum held that while filling the formof RTGS the  complainant  was  filling other  information  correctly but  was  filling  the  account number of  651010200000596 as  601010200000596. However,  the mistake  of digits  is minor which  the O.P. No. 1 should have checked  while transferring  the amount and  also should have matched it  with the  name , bank name , branch  and  IFSC Code.  If  the amount  was transferable  only  on the account  number  recorded  on the form then  there was  no necessity  to  ask  for  additional information of  name, branch,  bank and IFSC Code. The O.P.No. 1 has not  clarified  the requirement.

          The learned Forum considered  that  the complainant  pleaded that  as per the  RBI Circular  the banks are  generally expected to verify the information   provided  before affording  credit in the account.  It indicates  that  the O.P.No. 1 should  have verified  and matched  the information  on  RTGS application before  transferring the  amount as can be seen  from the  referred  RBI Circular. If the information  did not match it should  have been notified  to the  customer  for  rectification after which only the credit should have been transferred.

          The learned Forum therefore, held that  the O.P.No. 1 failed  to follow  the directions of the  RBI and  denied  responsibility on the ground of a minor mistake of the  complainant. Hence,  has committed  deficiency in service in not providing proper  service of  core banking  solution  system to complainant.

          The learned Forum also held that it was incumbent upon the O..No. 2 to recover the amount  from the  wrong  person who got the amount deposited and to return it back to  O.P.No. 1.

          The learned Forum thus came to the conclusion that  the O.P.No. 1 committed a deficiency  in service  resulting into the  loss to the complainant,  for which   it deserves  to compensate it.  Thus  passed the order supra.

5.      Aggrieved against the order the O.P.No. 1 has filed this  appeal.    Advocate Shri Dahivale and others  appeared for it. Hence, is referred as  appellant.  Original complainant is referred as respondent No. 1. The original  O.P.No. 2,3&4 are respectively  referred as  respondent Nos. 2,3&4. Respondent Nos. 2,3&4 proceeded exparte as  remained  absent   in appeal inspite of  proper service. 

6.      On the day of hearing  on 13/08/2018  the advocate of the appellant  remained absent. But  on 21/08/2018 Advocate Mr. Sukhdeve remained present for the appellant and requested  to hear him on behalf of appellant. Hence, we heard him.  Advocate Shri Dhekare remained present  for the respondent No. 1.  We also heard him.

7.      The advocate for the appellant submitted that  the respondent No. 1 sent money by RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement ) system  of the  Reserve Bank of India from  18/12/2012 to 22/01/2013 on five times an amount  totaling to Rs. 507381/- to respondent No. 4 in his account  with the  respondent No. 2 the Axix Bank Limited, Chandrapur. However,  every time he committed a mistake  in the  account number of respondent No. 4. However,  gave the correct  IFSC Code.  As per the instructions  given by  the respondent No. 1 the amount  and the  IFSC Code and account number is punched  in the system.  The amount  was transferred  in the account of the respondent No. 3 which  withdrew the amount  without  brining  to the notice that  the amount  entered  in its account  was  without reference.

8.      The  advocate for the appellant further submitted that the respondent No. 1 brought this mistake of  wrong account number  to the notice of  the appellant  on 29/01/2013 after a long time and demanded  the repayment  of the same.  The respondent No. 1 gave the notice to appellant  to which  the appellant  replied  with a proper  reasoning  and denied  any  deficiency.  The  respondent No. 1 also made a complaint  to the  Banking Ombudsman Mumbai against the  appellant  bank which was dismissed  by  the Ombudsman declaring  no deficiency in service  on the part of the appellant.

9.      The advocate for the appellant submitted that  the respondent No. 1 also issued  an independent  notice  to the respondent  No. 2&3 without giving any copy  to the appellant  which indicated that  the  respondent No. 1 was well aware that   the mistake of  diverting  the sent amount  in  some different account of  respondent No. 3 who had account with  respondent No. 2 is not a mistake  or  careless  act  of the  appellant.  The respondent No. 1 also  filed  independent  complaint  before  the Banking Ombudsman of  Thiruanantapuram  against  the respondent No. 2 the receiving  bank which was  also disposed of by the  Banking  Ombudsman of  Thiruanantapuram.  It indicates that  the  respondent No. 1 was  fully aware  that  the mistake  committed in the wrong diversion  of the amount sent  in the account of  respondent No. 3 is  not because of  the mistake  on the part of  appellant. But  it is  primarily  because of  the wrong  quoting  of  the account number  of respondent No. 4 by the  respondent No. 1 and  because of  wrong transfer of amount  in the electronic grid of  respondent No. 2.

10.    The advocate for the appellant further  submitted that  the  learned Forum and the  respondent No. 1 referred to the circular dated 14/10/2010 of  Reserve Bank of India in which   in para 3 it is advised that  the banks are  expected to match  the name  and account number  of the beneficiary  before the  affording credit to the account.

11.    The advocate for the  appellant also  submitted that  the RTGS  is a electronic  system of transfer of money from  one account to another  account. When the  instructions in the written form are received  from the  respondent No 1 they were  properly punched in the  computer system  of the  appellant  with  the information  given by the respondent No. 1. It was a mistake on the part of the respondent No. 1 who gave  wrong information  of account number of the  beneficiary. Once  the information  is punched. As the IFSC code was correct  the amount     went into  the  grid of  RTGS of  respondent No. 2.

12.    The advocate for the appellant further submitted that when the account number   of the beneficiary is of the  appellant bank then it is possible  to  verify the name of the  beneficiary along with  the account number.  But  when the  beneficiary account number is of  another bank it is not possible  to verify the name and account number of the beneficiary. Therefore, it was not possible for the  appellant  branch  to verify the  name of the  beneficiary  in the grid of  respondent No. 2 and  the  amount information went in to the grid of  respondent No. 2 successfully.  It was  every time informed to the  respondent No. 1. Hence,  it was  necessary for  the respondent No. 1 to inform  the sending number to the  beneficiary  respondent No. 4 and  it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 4 the beneficiary to verify from his bank regarding  receipt of amount promptly  after  it was sent  by  the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 not only  gave  the wrong  account number  but also  failed  to verify the  receipt of the amount by the beneficiary respondent No. 4 promptly after every  instance  of  sending the money which would have immediately  been recorrected. The appellant  would have helped the  respondent No. 1 to retrieve back the amount and  guide it  in to the  correct account of the  respondent No. 4.  Hence,  it is the  only mistake  of  the  respondent No. 1 who  gave  wrong account number  and  brought  the wrong transfer to the notice of  the appellant  after  a long time till which  the wrong beneficiary, the  respondent No. 3 withdrew the amount  and appropriated  it keeping  no amount  in the account.

13.    The learned advocate of the appellant  further  submitted that  the complaint filed by the appellant  before the Banking Ombudsman  at  Thiruanantapuram,   the  respondent No. 2 has accepted that  the amount was wrongly credited in the account of the respondent No. 3 in their  grid  for which the respondent No. 2 made efforts to contact the respondent No. 3 to get back the amount and also  placed  lien  upon the account . The  respondent No. 2 also informed  that  they are  taking steps  by making complaint  to the Police to recover the amount.

14.    The advocate of the appellant further submitted that  the  circular  referred by  the  appellant  if  studied   will show that  the circular says that  the names are written in different  manner in India. Hence,  the Bank  should verify  the  account number  and beneficiary . But  the  amount is  transferred  as per the  account number.  It shows that  the  appellant  has not  made any mistake  in transferring the amount as per the directions of the respondent No. 1. However, the learned  Forum could not  appreciate  the system of transfer  and the  correct action taken by the appellant  and passed the order which is unsustainable and hence, needs to be set aside.

15.    The advocate for the  respondent No. 1 reiterated the contents of the complaint  and submitted that  the  complainant  only made a small mistake  of  figures in the  account  number of the beneficiary. But  the  respondent No. 1 had given the correct name and the  IFSC Code of the beneficiary  to the  appellant.  Hence,  as per the circular of the Reserve Bank of India it was necessary for the appellant to verify the name of the beneficiary  and the account number. It was incumbent upon the appellant  to bring the  wrong  information of  account number to the  notice of the respondent No. 1 so that  the respondent  no. 1 would have  corrected it . Also  it was  necessary  for the  appellant  to properly  transfer the amount in the account of beneficiary,  the respondent No. 4,  after verifying the name.

16.    The advocate for the respondent No. 1 submitted that  it was necessary for the respondent No. 2 also to verify the name of the beneficiary  and only then   deposit the  amount and also  it was necessary  on the part of the  respondent No. 2 to recover the amount and give it to the  respondent No. 1.

17.    The advocate for the respondent No. 1 therefore submitted that the learned Forum properly appreciated the fact as to why the appellant has requested all the information of the beneficiary in RTGS  form and then only deposit the amount in the account number.  Therefore, has correctly held that the appellant committed deficiency in service and passed the order which needs to be confirmed.

18.    The advocate of the respondent No. 1 also submitted that the deficiency  in service is caused by the respondent No. 2 & hence, he should also get compensation from the respondent No. 2.

19.    We considered the submissions  of both the advocates and perused the evidence submitted by the appellant in the appeal.  In the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Banking  Ombudsman, Thiruanantpuram there is a letter  sent by  the  branch officer of the respondent No. 2 who has informed that  the amount was deposited  in the grid of  respondent No. 2  by account number on the dates it was sent  by the  appellant bank and  the branch was informed  of the wrong credit by their  RTGS  team on 30/01/2013. After which the officers of the  respondent No. 2 had approached to the respondent No. 3 and were in the process of  filing  police  complaint against  him and  had placed  a lien on the account to recover the amount.  The respondent No. 2 had also submitted that they would make best effort to  recover the amount.

20.    We also perused  the punching card, & the punching screen of the appellant bank, which shows that based  on the IFSC Code and Account number, the account was accepted in the grid of  respondent No. 2.

21.    We also perused   carefully the  circular  issued by the Reserve Bank of India referred by both the parties, in case  of  RTGS  and NEFT (National Electronic Fund Transfer ).  It is  necessary for the bank to verify the account number with details of name and IFSC Code. But  when the  respondent had given  the wrong account number it would not be possible  for the  sending  branch  of appellant  to suspect  the wrong account number. It is submitted by the  respondent No. 1 that  he was given the information of the transfer of amount  each time it was sent  who had given it as per his say to the  beneficiary respondent No. 4. It was incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 to verify the receipt of the  amount properly on the same day which  the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 4 did not do and  the amount  got transferred as per the account number given by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 only brought  the wrong transfer  of the amount  to the notice of  appellant  after a  long time when the  respondent No. 3 got a chance to withdraw  the entire amount of  each transfer and  appropriate it. 

22.    We considered  the contentions of the appellant who submitted that once the instructions of RTGS matched  by the IFSC Code of the beneficiary  bank, the  sending bank if different,  has no way  to  verify the  name and account number of the  beneficiary  who has account in the receiving bank.  It is only for the respondent No. 1 and the beneficiary  who has to verify  the entry  of amount  in the account and get confirmed of the transfer.  If the  respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 being  beneficiary  did not verify the transfer  promptly  and did not bring the  wrong transfer to the notice of the appellant  promptly then  it cannot be presumed that  the  appellant  would know about  the wrong transfer of amount.  It shows that  the appellant  cannot be  accused of  deficiency in service when  the respondent No. 1 gave a wrong account number and also did not  verify the receipt of the amount in each time  bringing it to the notice of  the appellant.

23.    We further considered the circular issued by  the  Reserve Bank of India. The  para 5 sub clause iv,v,vi,vii, which  clearly shows  the process of  transferring the amount in RTGS and NEFT by  the account number  and not  by verification of name. Also  it is  well known fact that  the computer  system  identifies  the  account number in banking system in preference to  names.

24.    We further find that  the respondent No. 2 had submitted before  the   Banking Ombudsman  that  the amount was wrongly credited in their grid. It shows that  the appellant  cannot be saddled  with the  claim of  deficiency of service  when the  respondent no. 1 gave  wrong account number and also  failed  to verify  the transfer of amount  to beneficiary in time.

25.    We further find that  the relationship  of consumer and service provider exists between  respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2  as the money was transferred from appellant  to  respondent No. 2 by RTGS and it was  expected from respondent No. 2 to verify and match the account number  and name of the beneficiary  respondent No. 4 as per the  RTGS information  punched by the appellant.  As both appellant and respondent  No. 2 are operating the RTGS System  in coordination of each other, they thus are  service providers so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned.

26.    Moreover,  as the  respondent  No. 2 did not  watch  the name , IFSC Code of the branch  and  account  number of the beneficiary  respondent No. 4, before  affording the credit , which caused loss to the respondent No. 1.  Hence, the respondent No. 2 provided deficient service  to the respondent No. 1.

27.    The learned Forum has already  given  direction  to respondent No. 2 under clause No. 4 of the operative part of impugned order to recover the  amount deposited mistakenly  in different  account and  to return the same  to the  appellant. In our view, the said direction  can be modified and substituted  by giving  direction to the respondent No. 4 to pay the said amount of Rs. 5,07,381/- to the respondent No. 1  first and then to recover the amount from respondent  No. 3, by adopting  recourse of law.

28.    We also find that  though  the appeal is  not filed by the   respondent No. 1, against the respondent Nos. 2,3&4, still the  respondent No. 2 can be held responsible  for  deficiency in service  discussed as above in as much as the Forum below  in the impugned order has already directed  the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount from respondent No. 3 and to pay the same  to appellant. The said direction  is not challenged by the respondent No. 2 by filing  the appeal. Hence,  in  this appeal the said direction  is to be modified as per the above finding.  

29.    We therefore, find that  the  learned Forum  has committed   a mistake  in appreciating the  system of RTGS and the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India and  passed the order by  placing the claim of deficiency  in service upon the appellant  by passing  the order supra. Hence,  the order needs to be  set aside by modifying it as below.

30.    We further find that the respondent No. 2 has committed a deficiency   in service and hence is bound to  make good  the  lost amount  to the  respondent No. 1 and recover it  with due process of law from the wrong beneficiary. We further find that  the  respondent No. 1 gave  wrong account number and  failed  to  verify the receipt of amount and   also brought it to the notice  of appellant after a long time. Hence, cannot be compensated  for his own mistake.

31.    We therefore,  with the consideration  of the evidence on record  and the  reasons  recorded  as above modify the  order of the learned Forum as below.  Hence, the order.

ORDER

i.        The  appeal is partly allowed and  the appellant  is  absolved of  all  obligations from the complaint.

2.      The order of the learned Forum is modified  as below.

a.      The  direction given  under  clause No. 2  of operative part  of impugned order is set aside and  replaced as under:

          The respondent No. 2 is directed  to provide the respondent No. 1 the lost amount of Rs.5,07,381/-  or  transfer  it in his account  No. 60104647953 in the bank of  appellant  in the span of 30 days from the receipt of this  order. In case of  failure, to provide interest at the rate of 10% p.a. upon it from the date of   this order till final  payment or deposit.

b.      The direction given in clause No.3 of  operative  part of impugned order is set aside.  

c.       The direction given  in  clause No. 4  of operative  part of the impugned order is modified  & substituted   that  the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount  from the  person  in whose  account  the amount was  wrongly   deposited  and  make good  its loss.

iii.      The rest of the order  is confirmed.

iv.      Copy of the order be provided to all the parties, free of cost.