This is an application under section 12 of Consumers Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant Smt. Keya Choudhuri wherein it is contended , interalia, to the effect that the complainant being the consumer of the O.P. Allahad bank opened Savings Bank Account No. 21023632223 under O.P. bank and she had been operating the said account regularly The O.P. bank received Rs. 4930..76 on 10.5.2012 and another sum of Rs. 4951.02 dated 10,3,2012 from H.S B C bank through the process of NEFT . Without crediting the said amount in the account of the complainant the O.P. bank straight way kept the said amount in the Sundry Creditors Account which was detected on 1.10.2012 by the complainant who lodged a complaint letter on 5.10.2012 for which the O.P. bank credited the said amount on 6.10,2012 in the said account belonging to the complainant. On being asked by the complainant on 17.10.2012 the Assistant General Manager of O.P. bank at Siliguri without giving any response to her said letter sent her a letter by local courier with giving back dated of 8.10,2012 which was initially pre-poneded to cover up their said lapse which amounts to unfair trade practice. It is contended in the said O.P.”s letter (Annexure 2 ) that as the NEFT transactions were not having current account number, since they were having single digit account no.3, belonging to some other person the said money was kept in sundry credit account. But as the O.P. without applying the proper process of NEFT kept the said amount in sundry credit account, it is to be presumed that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice made on behalf of the O.P. for which the complainant suffered mental agony & monetary loss. Thus, due to gross negligence of the O.P. the complainant also faced unnecessary harassment. Hence, this case.
The O.P. contested this case by filing written version and denied all maerial allegations as alleged against the O.P. by the complainant. It is specifically states in the W/V by the O.P. to the effect that as the account number and the name of the complainant were not matched the O.P. could not credit the said amount in the particular Saving Account of this complainant and so the O.P. shall not be heldliable in this respect. Moreover as the complainant did not enquire about her any NEFT‘s for more than two months the allegations as alleged by complainant against the O.P. should not be accepted.
It is also stated in the W/V to the effect that in letter dated 8.10.2012 it is to be found that the account number was wrongly mentioned in the particular NEFT message. According to earlier guideline of R.B.I.. a bank has to afford credit to the dbeneficiary account or return transaction to the original bank within the prescribed time limit of two hours of receiving the original NEFT message and if the fund is returned after the said time limit of two hours it is to be rejected by the system on RBI end and fund remained in NEFT rejection sundry creditor account of the concerned branch. Branches have to return such fund manually by crediting a fresh NEFT message. Though the O.P. tried to return the fund to the beneficiary bank but as the transfer mode of NEFT module of the branch was not activated so far the money could not be sent back to beneficiary bank. Moreover this O.P. have lodged a complaint on 15.6.2012 to its project office at Mumbai, but the problem still exists. This O.P. is executing NEFT through cheques only. The complainant after visiting this O.P. personally could have arssisted the O.P. to solve the dispute amicably and easily. It is further contended by the o.P. that as there was no latches on the part of the O.P., the case is liable to be dismissed.
Under the above averments both parties went on hearing with the following points:
- Was there any latches on the part of the O.P. in dealing with the proper process of NEFT?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No..1, 2 and 3 :
All these points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenient as they are interlinked and inter related.
Admittedly the complainant owns a Savings Account in the O.P. bank., It is also admitted that the said account was being regularly operated by her. It is admitted by both the parties to the effect that the O.P. received two sums mentioned above from HSBC bank through process of NEFT. It is found in the record that the O.P. without crediting the said account in the relevant Savings Bank Account of the complainant kept the same in the sundry creditors account as because (according to O.P.) the necessary account number and the name of the account holder was not communicated by the HSBC bank to the O.P. through said NEFT.
In course of hearing agument the ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P. after drawing our attention over the relevant document on record have specifically argued that as the beneficiary bank i.e. HSBC bank did not mention the proper account number and proper name of the account holder, the O.P. couldnot match with the relevant account of the complainant and for this reason the O.P. kept the amount in question in sundry creditor account and dueto non mention of the name of the account holder properly the O.P. could not credit the amount in the relevant Savings Bank Account belonging to the complainant.
In reply, the ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant after drawing our attention over the relevant materials on record argued that the O.P. could not satisfy by adducing any cogent evidence as to why the O.P. did not pursue the HSBC bank timely to overcome the problems, as because the latches of O.P. was detected by the complainant on 1.10,2012 and following her complaint dated 5.102012 , the amount in question was credited in her Savings Bank Account on 6.10,2012 .
After having gone through the entire record with meticulous care and after having considered the arguments advanced by both parties we are inclined to opine that only on the plea of O.P. in relation to alleged in active of NEFT at the relevant time, the complainant’s case and problem should not be ignored.
According to the relevant provisions we know that “The beneficiary branches would make payment to the beneficiaries within two hours of batch settlement time by crediting thespecified account of the beneficiary or otherwise placing funds at the beneficiary of the beneficiary. For any delay, tbeneficiary bank is liable to pay penalty ( at the rate R.B.I. LAF Repo rate plus 2 p% ). Payment of penal interest shall be made to customer even if no claim is lodged by the customer to that effect”.
Here in the present case the O.P. unfortunately could not satisfy us by adducing any cogent material as to why the process of NEFT was not properly applied in this case by the O.P. bank. If the O.P. could apply the process of NEFT properly in time we think that the O.P. could have refunded the amount in question at the disposal of the HSBC. Had it been a fact that the function of NEFT of O.P. was not activated at the relevant time of transaction, but the O.P. could not satisfy us by adducing any material as to why the O.P. didn’t try to over come the disputes found in NEFT emphasisedly in time to credit the amount in question in the account of the complainant.
Considering this findings we are compelled to hold that there was latches on the part of the O.P. who did not apply the process of NEFT properly in time and accordingly we do hold that the O.P. was negligent in discharging his duties as per procedural guideline of NEFT.
In the circumstances we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. for which the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as sought for.
Thus, the case succeeds.
Hence it is
O r d e r e d
That C.C. No. 16/2013 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act1986 filed by Smt. Keya Choudhuri be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs. 5,000.00(Rupees five thousand) only to be paid by the O.P. in favour of the complainant within one month from this date.
The O.P. is also directed to pay interest as NEFT Ruleslaid down in RBI i..e. RBI LAF Repo plus 2% as penal interest in favour of the complainant within one month from this date.
The O.P. is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00(Rupees ten thousand) only in favour of the complainant as compensation for her mental agony & harassment.
The concerned Branch Manager is hereby directed to liquidate the above mentioned decretal dues in favour of the complainant within one month from this date.
The O.P. bank is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000.00(Rupees five thousand) only in the account of State Consumer W4elfare Fund within one month from this date.
If the said amount is not paid by the O.P. within one month from this date, the complainant will be at liberty to execute the decree into execution against the O.P. as per provisions of law.
