Makhan Singh, 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 the State Bank of India, (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is maintaining his Account No.11077379021 with the opposite party. It is alleged that on 09.09.2019 he send 14,500 dollars i.e. Rs.8,01,995/- to his son Mr.Simranjit Singh, who is studying at Canada from his above mentioned bank account through the OP but on account of non-mentioning of account number of Mr.Simranjit Singh, the amount in question cannot be paid to son of the complainant and ultimately the amount was received back by the OP. But to the utter surprise of the complainant the OP has credited an amount of Rs.7,68,227/- in the account of complainant instead of Rs.8,01,995/- and in this way an amount of Rs.33,768/- have been credited less in his account, without mentioning any reason. It is further alleged that he has suffered a lot as on the one hand son of the complainant could not receive the amount which was directly needed by him and on the other hand, the OP has also deducted huge amount of Rs.33,768/- without any default on his part. It is further alleged that he approached the OP and requested in writing to credit amount of Rs.33,768/- in his account, but the OP did not take any action. Even, he again sent registered letter to the OP with the same requests, but despite the service of letters and neither given any reply, nor taken any action into the matter.

          On the backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed and necessary directions may kindly be issued to the OP to credit the amount of Rs.33,768/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of due till actual realization. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of OP and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon Notice opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and liable to be dismissed and the complaint has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and concealed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Court. The complaint is totally false and facts mentioned in the complaint are totally wrong and incorrect and liable to be dismissed with special costs. It is pleaded that sending of 14,500 dollars i.e. Rs.8,01,995/- by complainant to his son at Canada is matter of record and anything contrary to the record is denied specifically. It is denied that on account of non-mentioning of account number of Mr.Simranjit Singh, the amount in question could not be paid to son of complainant and ultimately the amount was received back by the OP. It is further denied that the OP has credited an amount of Rs.7,68,227/- in the account of complainant instead of Rs.8,01,995/-. It is further denied that in this way an amount of Rs.33,768/- have been credited less in his account without any reason. It is admitted that complainant wanted to send money through RTGS to Toronto Dominion Bank, The Toronto where the son of the complainant is holding his account. So, he firstly withdraw the amount of Rs.8,01,995/- from his savings Bank account vide Debit Voucher dated 09.09.2019 and complainant authorized the opposite party to transfer the amount in the shape of Canadian Dollars i.e. 14,500 Dollars and in this respect complainant duly signed the Application for Remittance Abroad i.e. Form A-2. In Form A-2 it is clearly mentioned that complainant has authorized SBI GMU- Kolkata which is a proper channel of SBI via which the amount in the shape of dollars has been transferred in the account at abroad and was duly signed by the complainant himself in English language. It is further pleaded that the details furnished by the complainant for transferring his amount through RTGS in the shape of Canadian Dollars in the account of his son at Toronto were found mis-match. It is further pleaded that due to fluctuation of price of Dollars and selling and buying difference, an amount of Rs.7,68,227/- was credited in the account of complainant Bank. And it clearly shows that neither the respondent bank nor its proper channel established for sending the amount to abroad in the shape of particular country currency are responsible for any less amount credited in the account of complainant. On merits, the opposite party have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Makhan Singh (complainant) Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Naval Mahajan, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Gurdaspur as Ex.OP-1/A along-with other documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/3.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments on behalf of complainant filed but not filed by the opposite party.  

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that the amount of Rs.8,01,995/- was sent by the complainant to his son in Canada which was transferred by the opposite party by converting the same in 14,500 dollars. The said amount could not transferred on account of non mentioning of account number by the complainant. However, opposite party has reverted back amount of Rs.7,68,227/- in the account of the complainant instead of Rs. 8,01,995/- and in this way amount of Rs.33,768/- less was credited in the account of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.

10.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that the said amount could not be transferred in the account of son of the complainant on account of account detail mis-match. Moreover, the complainant has himself signed Form A-2 with which check list is also attached which is also signed by the complainant. As such the question of non mentioning of account number does not arise at all. However, it is admitted that Rs.33,768/- less was deposited in the account of the complainant. However, there is no fault on the part of the opposite party as less amount was credited on account of fluctuation of price of dollars and selling and buying difference, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

11.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that complainant had sent amount of Rs. 8,01,995/- to his son in Canada through opposite party on 09.09.2019 and complainant had filled Form A-2 by mentioning all the details. It is further admitted fact that the said amount could not be transferred to the account of son of the complainant in Canada and was reverted back. It is further admitted fact that the opposite party reverted back amount of Rs. 7,68,227/-. The only plea of the opposite party regarding payment of less amount is due to fluctuation in the price of dollars. However, the perusal of case file shows that the opposite party has not placed on record any such rate of dollars regarding fluctuation of dollars on 09.09.2019 to 12.09.2019 to prove the difference in the price of dollars. The opposite party has further failed to place on record any document on the basis of which Rs.33,768/- less was credited in the account of the complainant.

12.     From the above facts, circumstances and evidence on record this Commission is of view that the opposite party has paid Rs.33,768/- less to the complainant without any reasonable ground and justification. Accordingly, complainant has fully proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.33,768/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of complaint till realization within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.

13.      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.

14.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                       President

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 01, 2023                                               Member

*YP*