Haryana

StateCommission

A/632/2022

HARI PAL SINGH JETHURI - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV KUMAR SAINI

06 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.632 of 2022

                   Date of Institution:11.11.2022

Reserved for Orders: 06.09.2024

Date of Pronouncement:12.09.2024

 

Hari Pal Singh Jethuri S/o Ghamand Singh Jathuri R/o H.No.B-4105 Refinery Township, Panipat, District Panipat.

 

..…Appellant

Versus

 

 

1.      State Bank of India, Branch Panipat Refinery, IFSC Code No.SBIN0008706 through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Bank of India, IFSC Code NO.BKID0009642 Branch Office Khurkheda, Manuja Complex, District Gad Chiroli (Maharashtra State) through its Branch Manager.

 

..…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Shri  Rohit Goswami proxy counsel for Sh.Rajiv Kumar Saini, counsel for the appellant.

                   Respondent already proceeded against ex parte.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant-Appellant-Hari Pal Singh Jethuri, has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 06.10.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat whereby complaint filed by himwas dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that thecomplainant is having a saving bank account bearing No. No.10432191680 with the branch of opposite party No.1.  On 26.09.2017, he transferred anamount of Rs.1,00,000/- through NEFT (Online) from his above said account in the account of another contractor bearing account No.692410110000835, IFSC Code No.BKID0006942 in “Bank of India’ branch Munni Ki Reti, Rishikesh,Distt. Tehri Gurhwal, Uttra Khand.  He came to know that said amount has been transferred in another wrong account No.96241011000835 of one Rahul Prabhu DassSinde R/o V&PO Ghati,TehsilKhurkhera, Distt.Chiroli (Maharashtra) in place of correct account No.692410110000835 i.e. in the bank of OP No.2.  The complainant had filled up the IFSC code of Bank of India of Branch Munni Ki Reti, Rishikesh, but the said  amount has been transferred in the branch of respondent No.2 wrongly.  He contacted the OP No.1 and requested him to call back the amount of complainant from OP No.2. The respondent No.1 got refunded the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant on 11.10.2017 from OP No.2 by admitting the negligence and deficiency in service.    He requested the OP No.1 to pay the balance outstanding amount,  but to no avail.  Faced with this situation, he got issued a legal notice dated 30.11.2018 to the OPs,  which was duly served, but despite thereof the OP NO.1 did not get refunded the amount of Rs.70,000/- from OP No.2 from the account No.9624110000835 into the bank account of complainant. The complainant prayed for outstanding payment of Rs.70,000/- alongwith compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

3.      Notice being issued, OP No.1appeared and filed written statement.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, estoppel and suppression of true and material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.    On 26.09.2017, the complainant has made a transaction for transfer of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from his saving bank through NEFT (Online) and said transanction of transfer of amount remained successful and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred vide entry dated 26.09.2017 as mentioned the statement of account of complainant. The complainant made online complaint to the answering OP stating that  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has wrongly been transferred by him in wrong account bearing No.962410110000835 in place of account bearing No.692410110000835, which was wrongly transferred by complainant himself.  OP No.2 refunded an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 11.10.2017 in the saving account of complainant.  Neither the answering OP transferred the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the account of complainant nor he had knowledge about the transanction of transfer of amount by complainant himself from his said account through NEFT (Online). The complainant was not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 29.08.2019.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, (In short “District Consumer Commission”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.10.2022.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal. Upon notice being issued, the OPs did not put in appearance and accordingly vide order dated 20.03.2024 they were proceeded ex parte.

7.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. With hiskind assistance the entire record of appeal wasthoroughly perused andexamined.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued thatOP No.1 had wrongly transferred the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through NEFT (Online) from his above said account to another A/c No.96241011000835.  Further argued that on 11.10.2017, OP NO.2 has refunded an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Further argued that he was entitled for remaining balance amount as well.

9.       The plea of the complainant-appellantwas that concerned bank had negligently and wrongly transferred the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to another account and he had already received Rs.30,000/- from the concerned bank for its deficiency in service and thereafter he was entitled for the balance outstanding amount of Rs.70,000/-.  Perusal of the file shows that OP No.1 had provided best services to the complainant to recover the amount from the account maintained with OP No.2. OP No.1 submitted in its reply that OP No.2 has refunded an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 11.10.2017 in the saving account of the complainant. Thus there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1-Bank.The above said plea of the complainant-appellant is not tenable in the eyes of law because as per circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Bearing No. RBI/2010-11/235 DPSS (CO) EPPD No./863/04.03.2001/2010-2011, in which beneficiary’s name shall be compulsorily mentioned in the deposit form and before transferring the disputed amount to the relevant account, the complainant filled-up the beneficiary name in the depository form and thereafter the bank transferred the amount. The Destination Bank(s) are also required to verify the particulars of payments received by them through RTGS, NEFT, NECS, ECS variants etc. The complainant-appellant did not place on record any bank statement or any evidence.  Even, the complainant-appellant did not prove that how and when and in which situation, the concerned bank has refunded the amount of Rs.30,000/-.  In view of the above, the complainant was not entitled for the amount. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

10.  

11.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of Pronouncement               S.P.Sood                                          T.P. S. Mann

12^th September, 2024                     Judicial Member                             President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)