Punjab

Sangrur

CC/59/2018

Purushottam Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rohit Jain

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  59

                                                Instituted on:    12.02.2018

                                                Decided on:       19.12.2018

 

 

Purushottam Yadav son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, resident of 197, Misrana, Shikohabad, District Ferozabad, now resident of c/o M/s. Shibu Mal Radha Mal, Jarg Chowk, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             State Bank of India, through its Chief Manager, Main Branch, Bus Stand to College Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

2.             Canara Bank through its Manager, Outside DelhiGate, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

3.             Canara Bank through its Manager, Shikohabad, District Ferozabad (Uttar Pardesh).

4.             Canara Bank, through its Manager, Kapsra Branch, Hyderabad.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.1  :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2&4:     Shri P.K.Sood, Adv.

For OP NO.3             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Inderjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Inderjeet Kaur/Vinod Kumar Gulati,Members.

 

1.             The complaint of the complainant is that on 02.11.2017 the complainant sent Rs. 40,000/- in the account of his daughter through the opposite party no.1 through RTGS and submitted voucher in this respect with the opposite party no.1, but inadvertently account number of daughter of the complaint was written as 3087108000533 instead of 3287108000533, but IFS code was written correctly as CNRB0003287. That daughter of the complainant has to submit her education and examination fee due to which the complainant transferred Rs.40,000/- in her account and the complainant received three massages on his mobile from the opposite party no.1 regarding transfer of amount in the account of Pooja Jain and one massage on 03.11.2017.

 

2.     That on 02.11.2017 when the complaint was coming out of the opposite party no.1 he received a massage on his mobile that Rs. 40,000/- has been transferred in the name of Pooja Jain. The complainant immediately approached the manager of the opposite party no.1 and requested him to look into matter as his daughter name is Pooja Yadav and not Pooja jain, but the manager told the complainant that they have sent the amount in correct account and asked the complainant to come next day as it was 04.00 PM and Public dealing is closed.

 

3.     That on 03.11.2017 the complainant went to Opposite party no.1 and approached Manager who asked the complainant to approach manager of the opposite party no.2.

 

4.     That on 03.11.2017 the complainant approached the manager of the opposite party no.2 and told the whole story and after inquiry told the complainant that his amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been transferred to Canara Bank, Hydrabad in the account of a person namely Managat Ram and advised the complainant to ask manager of the opposite party no.1 to hold the amount and the complainant again approached the officers of the opposite party no.1, but nothing was done in this respect.

 

5.     That the complainant again approached manager of the opposite party no.1 on 06.11.2017 and submitted a letter and also told that amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been transferred in the account of one Managat Ram having account on Canara Bank, Hydrabad and requested him to send his letter to manager of the opposite party no.4 and manager of the opposite party no.1 assured that he will look into matter, but nothing was done in this respect. The complainant talked with his daughter and asked her to go to Op no. 3 and she approached Op no.3 and the complainant talked with the Manager of Op no.3 and told the whol story and Manager of Op no. 3 after talking with manager of Op no.4 told the complainant that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been withdrawn from the Canara Bank Hydrabad and hold the account of Mangat Ram. So that remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- could not be withdrawn and transferred Rs. 20,000/- to the account of the complainant.  The complainant sent Rs. 40,000/- on 03.11.2017 through Op no. 2. He again try to approach the Manager of Op no. 1 but was told to come on 06.11.2017 being 4.11.2017 and  5.11.2017 as holidays. The complainant has sought the relief as under :-     

1. To credit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in his account/ or his daughter along with the interest @12% P.A from 02.11.2017 to till payment.
2. Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony/Physical Harassment/Financial loss and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation Expenses.

          6.             The Op no. 1 in there reply has submitted that complaint is frivolous, vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and same deserves to be dismissed. Further the complainant had mentioned account No. 3087108000533 held in Canara Bank. Branch Shikohabad having IFSC CNRB0003287 on 02.11.2017 in which the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was to be remitted by opposite party No.1. As per the instructions of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 remitted/sent the amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the account of complainant to be credited in account No.3087108000533 held in Canara Bank. Opposite party No.1 is not responsible in anyway in getting the amount of Rs. 40,000/- credited in the desired account No.3087108000533.

7.     Opposite party No.1 as per instructions of the complainant transferred/sent the amount of Rs. 40,000/- Canara Bank to be credited in account No. 3087108000533 through NEFT. As such, there is neither any mistake nor any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 to transfer the amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the account number mentioned in the application submitted for that purpose by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is neither aware about the purpose of the transfer of the amount of Rs. 40,000/- nor is concerned with it. Message for transfer in such manner is automatically delivered by the automated system. NEFT is monitored by Reserve Bank of India. Further NEFT system track only the account number and not the account holder.

8.     However, it is admitted that the complainant had submitted an application regarding the above mentioned matter on 06.11.2017 to opposite party No.1. The complaint it is submitted that the Manager of opposite party No.1 on 06.11.2017 told the complainant that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was transferred in the account number mentioned in the application form submitted by him on 02.11.2017 and that the refund of amount can be given by the Canara Bank Authorities. Moreover, it is admitted that on 06.112017 Manager of opposite party No.1 sent a letter dated 06.11.2017 to the Manager of opposite party No.4 to do the needful and it is the function of opposite party No.2 to 4 to get the needful done as desired by the complainant. That in reply of the complainant it is submitted that in view of the position explained there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and that opposite parties No.2 to 4 are required to do the needful. The complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1.

 

9.     In a reply submitted by Ops no. 2 & 4 that Complaint is not maintainable against the opposite answering parties. That all the stories put forward against opposite party no.2 is Concocted story & opposite party no.2 has been unnecessarily dragged in to litigation in order to take the opposite parties in to the jurisdiction of this Forum. That this honourable Forum has got no jurisdiction to try & decide the present complaint against the opposite Party no. 2 to 4.That Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Complainant must have made Mr. A.Magesh Kumar opposite party as only A Magesh Kumar is beneficiary & has withdrawn amount of Rs.20,000/- from his account on dt. 03/11/2017.

 

10.   The complainant has himself admitted that he has himself filled the wrong account no. of A. Magesh Kumar in his voucher for transfer of amount through RTGS in the above said mentioned account instead of account no. of his daughter. He cannot now blow hot & cold in the same breath. On the one hand he is admitting his fault & on the other hand he is claiming amount from opposite party no. 2 & 4. That the complainant has on 14/11/2017 issued notice to opposite party no. 1 as he knew it well that opposite party no. 2 to 4 there is no cause of action.

 

11.   Opposite party no. 4 has its office in Hyderabad which is out of the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble redressal forum. Op no. 3 has chosen to remain as Ex-party. Complainant submitted Ex.C-10 and close the evidence and the Op no. 1 tender into evidence Ex. Op-1/2 affidavit and close evidence on behalf of Op.1. Further Op 2 &4 tender into evidence affidavit, and copy of power of attorney and close evidence on behalf of Op 2 &4.

 

12.   We have carefully gone through the documents submitted by the both the parties, written arguments submitted by Op.1 and heard the arguments of the Ld counsels of both the parties and have found that the complainant submitted RTGS/NEFT application form on 02.11.2017 for transferring of Rs. 40,000/- in the account of his daughter Pooja Yadav from SBI Branch of Malerkotla to Canara Bank Branch situated in Shikohabad with IFSC code – CNRB-0003287. This code number tallies with the number mentioned on the copy of the pass book submitted by the complainant on Ex. C-4. While going through the documents submitted by the Ops.2-4 and the statement of the account of the (A- Magesh Kumar in whose account the sum of Rs.40,000/- has been credited), the IFSC code has been mentioned as CNRB0003087. Futher it has been found from the Ex.C-9 that due to the mistake on the part of OP number, firstly an amount of Rs.40,000/- had been shown sent to the account of Pooja Jain CNRB0003287 instead of to the account of Pooja Yadav  at 15.51 hours and secondly at 04.14 PM, the sum of Rs.40,000/- has been shown credited to beneficiary account number at CNRB0003287 on 2.11.2017, whereas actually the amount was credited into the account of one A.Magesh Kumar on 2.11.2017 with IFSC NO. 0003087 – Canara Bank Hyderabad Kapra and he withdrew the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 3.11.2017. Further OP 2 and 4 were quick enough to respond to the request of the complainant and they acted when received the request from the sender bank i.e. OP 1 on 9.11.2017, blocked the remaining amount in the account of A.Magesh Kumar and reversed the entry of Rs.20,000/- on 10.11.2017. It was the OP 1, who did not take the issue seriously, which resulted into the misappropriation of the money by A.Magesh Kumar. This fact is very much clear from the documents as the complainant submitted his requests for addressing the issue on 3/6.11.2017 and the op.1 send the request to the manager Canara bank Hyderabad on 09/11/2017. The Complainant in his complaint has averred that he mentioned the IFS code correctly, whereas in the reply of OP number 1, it has been stated that message for transfer in such manner is automatically delivered by automated system NEFT is monitored by RBI.  Further NEFT system tracks only the account number and not the account holder.  But, the OP number 1 could not produce any document on record to support its contention. Further an amount of Rs.40,000/- finally got credited into the account of A.Magesh Kumar of Hyderabad branch with IFS code 0003087. In stead of Shikohabad Branch of Canara bank with IFSC Code: CNRB0003287 which was correctly written on the NEFT/RTGS form submitted by the complainants to the bank.

 

 

13.           In view of our above discussion and entire facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to credit an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 2.11.2017 till realisation.  Further the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

14.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

 

                        December 19, 2018.                                                                                                

                                       

                                                            (Inderjeet Kaur)

                                                           Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member