DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.647/09
Sh. Shiv Kumar
R/o C-3/69, Janakpuri
New Delhi-110058 …. Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager
State Bank of India
New Delhi Main Branch
Regional Office (Delhi)
C Block, 11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Manager
State Bank of India
Mayapuri Branch
C-123, Mayapuri
New Delhi-110027
3. The Manager
State Bank of India
Sagar Tower, District Centre
Janak Puri Branch
New Delhi-110058
4. H.S.B.C. India
Birla Tower
25 Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001 …. Opposite parties
Date of Institution : 14.09.09 Date of Order : 23.11.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had a saving bank account No.10502266161 since 09.05.06 at Janakpuri branch of OP No.3. His son had an account with Wells Fargo Bank vide saving bank account No. 2323835278 in the name of Sachin Garg. In December, 2008 the complainant was in need of financial help to pay his debt. He made a call to his son to immediately send Rs.400000/- to him to pay his debt on or before 31st December, 2008. His son transferred US $ 8600 on 22.12.08 via wire transfer in his bank account. He received a telephonic call on 23.12.08 from his son that he had transferred US $ 8600 in his bank account. On the next day on 24.12.08 he visited the OPs Bank and checked the status of the transferred money. He was shocked to know that the money had not been transferred in his account. The bank officials advised him to wait for 2-3 days as sometime wires transfer takes 2-3 days. He again visited the OP No.3 bank on 30.12.08 and came to know that the money had not been transferred in his account. He immediately made a call to his son and enquired about the status of transferred money and came to know that the money was transferred on 22.12.08 itself. He was helpless and left with no other option but to take loan on higher rate of interest to pay his debit. His son received a reply on 09.01.09 from customer care of Wells Fargo Bank stating that the Wells Fargo Bank had transferred US $ 8600 (INR 4000747.92) via wire transfer vide reference No.LPBOMF90434 to the State Bank of India in account No.10502266161 in the name of Shiv Kumar but OP No.2 had returned the money with the reason “account unavailable.” Hence, the son of the Complainant had suffered a financial loss of $ 344.95. The OPs with malafide intention played a fraud with him by stating that account No.10502266161 in the name of Shiv Kumar was unavailable and thereafter deducting the charges. It amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed as under:
- Direct the OPs to return US $ 344.95 to the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant.
OP No.1 to 3 in their joint statement have inter-alia stated that as per NEFT bank incoming report, the money ought to have been remitted by HSBC bank vide reference No.LPBOMF90434 dated 24.12.08. The corresponding Bank HSBC bank of Wells Fargo Bank had remitted the money to receiver i.e. NEFT code No.SBIN0003479 (as a beneficiary is not maintaining account with SBI Mayapuri branch) (NEFT code No. SBIN0003479) but the remittance should have been forwarded to Janakpuri branch to SBI (NEFT Code No.SBIN0001706) which is maintaining the account of the Complainant. Hence, it was apparent mistake on the part of HSBC bank. The NEFT system payment take place automatically through Reserve Bank of India and no manual interference is possible in the system. It is submitted that as the money was wrongly remitted to the Mayapuri Branch of the OP Bank which is not maintaining the account of the Complainant, the amount was not accepted by the system and accordingly returned with the remarks “account unavailable.” Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the OPs. It is submitted that the Complainant was duly advised about the system of transfer of money and there was no fault on the part of OPs. It is denied that the Complainant is entitled to amount or any other amount towards mental tension. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder.
OP No.4 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.03.2013 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.
On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kr. Bhatia, Branch Manager (Mayapuri) of OP No.2 has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has not marked Exhibit Nos. on the documents as per Exhibit Nos. given to them in his affidavit.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had a saving bank account with the OP No.3. His son transferred US $ 8600 as per NEFT report remitted by OP No.4 vide reference No.LPBOMF90434 on 24.12.08 (copy annexure A to C). The money was remitted to the receiver i.e. NEFT Code No. SBIN0003479 wherein the Complainant was not maintaining his saving bank account in Mayapuri Branch. The Complainant had an account in Janakpuri Branch i.e. OP No.3 and its NEFT Code No. SBIN0001706.
In view of the above, it is evident from the record filed by both the parties that it was the mistake on the part of OP No.4 that it had transferred the money to the OP No.2 instead of OP No.3 as NEFT system payment takes place automatically through Reserve Bank of India as the money was wrongly remitted to the Mayapuri Branch of OP No.2 which was not maintaining the account of the Complainant and accordingly returned with the remarks “account unavailable.” Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 3. It is apparent that the OP No.4 bank wrongly transferred the money to the Mayapuri branch instead of Janakpuir Branch.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP No.1 to 3 and allow the complaint against OP No.4 and direct OP No.4 to pay Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum to the Complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment including cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.4 shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 23.11.16.
