The titled complainant firm has filed the present complaint through its prop. against the titled opposite party Bank seeking refund of the overdue outstanding sum of Rs.76,000/- with interest @ 18% PA besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation etc. on account of having suffered infringement of consumer rights at the instance of gross-negligence on the part of the Bank by way of an inadvertent remittance of Rs.1,29,852/- through NEFT (National Electronic Funds Transfer) to one different party (other than the one instructed) and further refunding Rs.53,852/- only with balance Rs.76,000/- withheld-back by the OP Bank till the time of filing of the instant complaint.

2.       The back-drop of the dispute, in brief, has been that the complainant firm (who has been the OP Bank's customer for the last 20 years) had on 01.09.2015 instructed the OP Bank to remit NEFT credit-transfer of Rs.1,29,852/- to M/s Vallabh Ceramics, Jabalpur (Complainant's Supplier) in their Bank A/c with Bank of Baroda at Jabalpur.

3.       However, the OP Bank had inadvertently/negligently transferred the amount to the Bank of Baroda A/c # 071 7050 0000 040 of one M/s Lakshmi Packaging instead of the correct Bank of Baroda A/c # 071 7050 0000 040 of M/s Vallabh Ceramics whereas the complainant had clearly written over the correct BOB A/c No on the reverse of the cheque leave instructing the NEFT transfer. The OP Bank overlooked that the two A/cs had same/similar number figures but with different last 2-digit suffix '41' instead of the suffix '40' of the rightful transferee account. The complainant has addressed the said transfer as gross-negligence on the part of the OP Bank and has also stated that it has adversely affected their credibility in the market causing them humiliation, harassment and agony besides the financial loss for no fault(s) at their end. Further, the OP Bank at much persuasive follow-up had refunded Rs.53,852/- on 08.02.2016 (after 5 months) with promises of balance-refund of Rs.76,000/- and on 23.08.2017 that too was finally refused and hence prompted the present complaint seeking the above relief(s).                   

4.       Lastly, the complainant to see successful prosecution of his present complaint has filed his affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), in support, along with the herein listed documents as:        Ex.C1– Copy of Ch. # 472064 (01.09.2015) Rs 1,29,869/- + Overleaf Instructions; Ex.C2– Copy of  RTGS/ NEFT Issuance Instruction Form SBP 1841;  Ex.C3– Copy of the complainant application of 05.10.2015to the OP Bank;  Ex.C4– Copy of Complainant's A/c Statement with the OP Bank; Ex.C – 5 Copy of e-mails exchanged between the two banks SBOP & BOB; Ex.C6– Copy of A/c Statement with the OP Bank;  Ex.C7– Copy of A/c Statement of the transferee with its bank BOB; 

5.       The OP Bank upon summoning, appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement comprising of the preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: The present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complained-of  transaction has been a commercial transaction and the commission lacks the necessary adjudicatory jurisdiction to put the same on trial. Further, the complaint is bad for non-joining of the necessary parties and the herein complainant is es-topped by his own act and conduct as he has suppressed the material cum vital facts and has thus not come to the commission with clean hands.   

6.       On merits, the OP Bank has accepted the paras 1 and 2 as matter of records but have specifically denied the ones contrary to the records. Further, the OP Bank has denied the contents of para 3 to 12 as wrong with the exception of having admitted the NEFT transfer instructions for Rs.1,29,852/- to M/s Vallabh Ceramics, Jabalpur; but have denied having been provided with the correct bank account number of the transferee to effect the requested NEFT transfer, in right order; And, as the bank account number was wrong the NEFT amount was transferred in an unwanted wrong account with the BOB who could recover and remit back Rs.53,852/- only (returned/reversed back in the complainant A/c) with the balance Rs.76,000/- to be refunded upon recovery, only. Lastly, the OP Bank has alleged that the complainant had himself given the wrong account number of the transferee and that has been the root-cause of the inadvertent transfer to the wrong account and thus the present complaint deserves dismissal with costs. The OP Bank written reply is accompanied by the Branch Manager Bani Singh's affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP31, in evidence.

7.       Somehow, the learned counsels for both the sides have not filed the written arguments in spite of having availed of an ample number of adjournments and have finally requested for adjudication on the strength of their written versions/reply and oral-arguments taken, together.                                                                                                

8.       We have examined the available documents/evidence as available on records of the present proceedings so as to statutorily interpret the meaning n purpose of each document along with the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the allegations/arguments as put forth by learned counsels for their respective sides.       

9.       We have scrutinized the present complaint to examine the extant issues liable/probable to arise/prompt during the related proceedings and find these quite normal and fit for usual resolve through the herein prescribed summary procedure and thus we over-rule the OP Bank's preliminary objection of commercial purpose and continue with the requisite furtherance.

10.     We observe that the OP Bank's objection fails at the very face of the documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C4) that were produced on 07.02.2018 by the OP Bank through the branch Deputy Manager Shri Chander Kant Sharma vide the statutory application/ instance of the complainant's counsel. We observe that (Ex.C1) the cheque # 472064 (01.09.2015) for Rs.1,29,869 = (including an exchange sum of Rs.17/-) drawn in favor of the OP Bank with NEFT instructions on its reverse has clearly indicated the transferee A/c # 07170 500000040 i.e. the correct bank A/c no.;  Further, (Ex.C2) the RTGS/ NEFT application form SBP 1841 mentions the transferee A/c No. as 07170500000040 (incorrect A/c no.) but that has not been signed by the authorized signatory- does not tally with signatures as put on the cheque with 'conditions of transfer' not signed/space for 'signatures' left blank. Again, (Ex.C3)- the 05.10.2015 dated letter seeking refund has been purposefully written for getting the wrong-transfer refund and has been drafted by the OP Bank as has been alleged by the complainant. Lastly, (Ex.C4) has been the bank A/c statement.

11.     We further observe that the OP Bank has not replied/responded to (Ex.C7) the complainant's letter dated 08.05.2017 seeking refund of balance amount of Rs.76,000/- and have been simply corresponding with the transferee Bank of Baroda through mails to get back the refund whereas it has been the outcome of the inadvertent act on the part of the OP Bank and it should have refunded the inadvertently transferred amount to the complainant at the very first instant. It shall be pertinent here to mention that as per the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) prescribed procedure the transfer-or bank during the conduct of RTGS/ NEFT transfer shall tally the name of the transferee account with its account number (as both appear on the RTGS/NEFT Transfer Screen) and shall effect the requisite transfer only upon confirmation since no reversal shall be feasible. Here, the OP Bank in order to suppress its negligent act of inadvertent NEFT transfer took refuge to unfair trade practice and further practiced unscrupulous exploitation of its customer by taking benefit of its dominant/superior position by drafting ambiguous  documents and getting these signed haphazardly to avoid the rightful refund.                                     

12.      In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the herein OP Bank can neither escape not wriggle out of its liability for the acts cum omissions of its offices/officers who have executed the wrong/inadvertent NEFT transfer and further authored the unfair means unmindful of violation of the complainant consumer rights. We also observe that the complainant(s) have suffered much harassment, humiliation and mental agony at the hands of the OP Bank Branch as well as its officers/officials who have all acted in a totally unauthorized manner. The OP Bank has failed to plead/quote as to under what 'law' they have been performing all these acts/omissions.

13.     We find the OP Bank has exhibited an employ of unfair trade practices in its functioning cum unscrupulous exploitation of the consumer/complainant and that do prove 'deficiency in service' in full display, on their part. Thus, we ORDER the OP Bank to: Release/Refund the withheld balance amount of Rs.76,017/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% PA  w.e.f. the date of NEFT Cheque (01.09.2015) till realization plus interest @ 6% PA on Rs.53,852/- w.e.f. the date of the NEFT Cheque to the date of refund (08.02.2016) besides Rs.15,000/- to be paid as cost of litigation and for having caused/inflicted  harassment, mental agony and financial-loss within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of these orders.

14.      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.

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

                                                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.

ANNOUNCED:                                  (B.S.Matharu)

DEC. 01, 2022.                                            Member.

YP.