DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 57/2015
Date of Institution : 08.04.2015
Date of Decision : 02.11.2015
Deepak Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Sh. Hem Raj, resident of Gurudwara Ramsar Road, Dhanaula, proprietor of Firm M/s Satgurur Pesticides, Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India, Branch Sadar Bazar, Dhanaula, through its Branch Manager;
HDFC Bank, Branch Dhanaula, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. S.S. Dhaliwal counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Raj Kumar Bansal counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER):
The complainant namely Deepak Kumar has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against State Bank of India Branch Sadar Bazar, Dhanaula (hereinafter called as the opposite party No. 1) and HDFC Bank Branch Dhanaula (hereinafter called as the opposite party No. 2).
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant is the proprietor of Firm M/s Satguru Pesticides, Dhanaula and having an account No. 31005087840 in the bank of opposite party No. 1 in the name of M/s Satguru Pesticides, Dhanaula. It is alleged that on 13.2.2015, the complainant visited the said bank for crediting Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of RTGS in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. The complainant also paid charges of Rs. 31/- as commission for crediting the said amount. It is further alleged that as per rules and regulations of banking system and as per the routine system, the amount of RTGS normally credited in the account of the beneficiary party within 24 hours. The complainant after making the RTGS, inquired from the opposite party No. 1 that whether the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been credited in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., or not. The Manager of opposite party No. 1 confirmed that the amount of Rs. 5,00,031/- has been debited from the account of the complainant and the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be credited in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., within 24 hours.
3. It is alleged that despite the assurance of the opposite party No. 1, they failed to credit the same. Rather they credited the same in the account of the complainant on 11.3.2015 after the expiry of one month and scheme. Due to which the complainant has suffered a huge financial and reputation loss. It is further alleged that there was a scheme launched by the Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., and according to that if the complainant purchased cotton between the period from 28.1.2015 to 12.2.2015 by paying advance payment then the company would give discount of Rs. 25/- per packet and between the period from 19.2.2015 to 28.2.2015 the company would give discount of Rs. 20/- per packet. The booking rate of one packet was Rs. 250/- and the complainant intended to book 2000 packets of cotton by paying Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance. Apart from this, the earlier investment of the complainant in the company was less than Rs. 7,99,000/- and after the purchase of cotton of Rs. 5,00,000/- the complainant would fall in the investment lap of Rs. 8,00,000/- to Rs. 13,99,000/- and the complainant could get an extra incentive of Rs. 7/- per packet instead of Rs. 6/- as per scheme. In this way due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant has also suffered loss. Since there is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To pay Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of discount.
To pay Rs. 2,000/- for loss of incentive.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- for loss of foreign tour.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 filed a separate written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is submitted that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the Bank and the same was to be sent through RTGS on 13.2.2015 and commission of Rs. 31/- was charged on it and this amount was to be credited to Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Salem. The opposite party No. 1 remitted the amount to HDFC Bank and the HDFC Bank was to credit the amount to Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. However, the opposite party No. 1 denied that the amount was to be credited by them. It is also submitted that the opposite party No. 1 was not aware about any scheme as alleged. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 remitted the amount to the HDFC Bank on the same date i.e. 13.2.2015 and the same was duly acknowledged by the HDFC Bank as per system.
5. It is alleged that HDFC Bank returned the amount to opposite party No. 1 and the same was credited to the BGL/suspense Account of the Bank. However, on the same day remitter Deepak Kumar was contacted from Mobile No. 98550-72923 on his Cell Phone No. 98789-04199 at 1-55 PM on 14.2.2015 by the opposite party No. 1, but he did not care for it. Then after verifying the data from our corporative Centre, the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been credited in the C.C. account of the complainant. Hence, there is no fault on the part of opposite party No. 1 and they performed their job without any delay and as such the opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for any alleged loss or damage. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. The opposite party No. 2 also filed separate written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus-standi or cause of action, jurisdiction, complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it is submitted that the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party No. 1 for RTGS and complainant never approached them. If any entry sent through RTGS then firstly the entry comes with that Bank through Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) in the system of the concerned Bank. However, in the present case the amount lying deposited with the opposite party No. 1 and they redeposited the amount in the account of the complainant on 11.3.2015. It is further submitted that there is no negligence on their part. Even the amount of RTGS has not been transferred by the opposite party No. 1 through Unique Transaction Reference. Moreover, the complainant has not suffered any loss. They have also prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, copy of policy/scheme Ex.C-3, copy of notice dated 13.3.2015 Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6, copy of reply of notice Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Parshotam Kumar Ex.O.P1/1, affidavit of Charna Ram Ex.O.P1/2, copy of voucher Ex.O.P1/3 & Ex.O.P1/4, copy of reply of notice dated 25.3.2015 Ex.O.P1/5, copy of bill dated 1.3.2015 Ex.O.P1/6, copy of message Type details Ex.O.P1/7, copy of message Type Enquiry Ex.O.P1/8, copy of statement of account Ex.O.P1/9 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Harmilap Singh Ex.O.P2/1, affidavit of Jaspreet Kaur Ex.O.P2/2, copy of confirmation letter Ex.O.P2/3 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents.
11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that Firm of the complainant namely M/s Satguru Pesticides, Dhanaula, was having account in the Bank of opposite party No. 1 and therefore he approached the said Bank for crediting of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., by way of RTGS and also paid commission for this job to the opposite party No. 1. However, the opposite party No. 1 failed to credit the same. Rather again credited the amount in the account of the complainant on 11.3.2015 i.e. after the expiry of the scheme and it has caused a financial loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- on account of discount and Rs. 2,000/- loss of incentive and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of foreign tour, to the complainant.
12. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 has contended that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sent through RTGS on 13.2.2015 to HDFC Bank (the opposite party No. 2) and it is the HDFC Bank, who was to credit the amount to Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. He further contended that however the HDFC Bank returned the amount to the opposite party No. 1 without any particular of the said amount and the same was credited to the BGL/suspense Account of the Bank. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further contended that however on the same day remitter Deepak Kumar was contacted on his Mobile Phone No. 98789-04199, but he did not care for it. He further contended that after verifying the data from corporative centre, the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been credited in the C.C account of the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 never utilized the said amount. Moreover, once the remitter was told about the transaction then it is the duty of the complainant to take further course of action.
13. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the complainant never approached to them and if any entry sent through RTGS then firstly the entry comes with that Bank through Unique Transaction Reference in the system of the concerned Bank. He further contended that in the present case the amount transferred through RTGS in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., but account number mismatched the original account number and due to this reason the amount of RTGS was not credited in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., and the amount of RTGS returned to the account of opposite party No. 1 and they redeposited the amount in the account of complainant. Thus, there is no negligence on their part.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and going through the contentions, we are of the opinion that the following controversies are required to be determined to arrive at a decision :-
(i) Firstly, there is a controversy whether the account number of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., mentioned in the RTGS mismatch the original account number and due to this reason the amount was not credited in the account of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Perusal of the record shows that no cogent and trustworthy evidence was produced by the parties to prove this point and therefore this controversy can only be proved by leading evidence by the parties and cannot be disposed of in a summary manner.
(ii) Secondly, the opposite party No. 1 has alleged that on the same day the remitter Deepak Kumar was contacted on his Cell phone, but the concerned person did not bother about it. Again this controversy can only be proved by leading evidence by the parties.
(iii) Thirdly, Whether there is a negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 or on the part of opposite party No. 2 and again it is a matter of controversy, which can only be proved by collecting evidence by the parties.
(iv) Fourthly, The complainant has alleged that he had to suffer a great financial loss and his reputation is affected. But again no affidavit of Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., has been placed on record to prove the genuineness of the claim.
15. In this case, there are disputed questions of facts pertaining to the various matters as referred to above and these go to the root of the case, therefore it is desirable that this case is not to be dealt by this Forum and could be delegated to the Civil Court.
16. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court as per Law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
2nd Day of November, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
