Date of filing: 05.03.2019
Date of disposal : 27.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.79/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2023
(CC.No.70/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Mr.D.Mayilvaganan, S/o.Duraisamy,
New No.231, Old No.105-A,
M.T.H.Road, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Chief Manager,
Canara Bank, Villivakkam Branch,
No.27, Sivan Koil Street,
Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049.
2.The Regional Manager,
Canara Bank,
Chennai Regional Office,
No.524, Anna Salai (8th Floor),
Chennai 600 018. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.Iyemperumal, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.G.Lavanya, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.70/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.79/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 28.02.2023 in the presence of M/s.G.Lavanya counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not crediting the payment made by the complainant an amount of Rs.2,16,791/- to the payees account along with a prayer to pay the interest amount of Rs.94,665/- levied by the State Tax officer on the complainant consequent on the delayed payment with 12% interest from 18.05.2017 till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties, the present complaint was filed. It was the case of the complainant that he was maintaining a Current Account in account No.0918261010233 and Customer ID No.28392653 with the Canara Bank, Villivakkam Branch for the past several years. It was further submitted that he has made an online payment of Rs.2,16,791/- on 18.05.2017 in favour of Villivakkam Assessment Circle of the Commercial Tax Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, towards VAT due for the month of March 2017. This amount had been duly debited from his bank account on the date with the description details as 20170518403410026 102895423-209271093. But the payment of Rs.2,16,791/- was not credited to Villivakkam Assessment Circle of the Commercial Tax Department. The transaction was an online payment effected through the software for payment of VAT. All payment of Sales Tax Department was used to be effected every month through that software only. Except the payment effected on 18.05.2017, all payments have been promptly credited to the Sales Tax Department regularly. The complainant came to know about the non payment after few months, when he received a call from the Sales Tax Department. Subsequently the complainant made several visits to the bank branch and enquired the 1st opposite party about the non payment of the said amount to the intended payee. The 1st opposite party miserably failed to address the problem of non payment to the intended payee despite repeated requests. They repeatedly advised the complainant to check and verify the bank account of Sales Tax Department instead of probing the track of that particular transaction. The 1st opposite party evaded his responsibility as a paying banker. The complainant had to face a fresh demand notice from the Sales Tax Department. On 16.08.2018 directing the complainant to pay the said amount of Rs.2,16,791/- along with interest, with a threat of attaching the bank account under section 45 of the TNVAT Act 2006 in case of failure. Because of the failure of the 1st opposite party the complainant had to face penal action from the Sales Tax Department. Therefore the complainant lodged a written complaint with the Regional office on 10.09.2018 and another complaint to the branch office on 13.11.2018 through his mail. The 1st opposite party in turn forwarded the complaint to the Customer Service Section of the Circle Office. But even then no tangible action was taken to trace the missing credit in the funds transfer, consequent on which the complainant was considered by the Sales tax Department as a defaulter. The complainant gave another complaint letter to the Regional Office of Canara Bank at Mount Road on 10.09.2019. After repeated visits and numerous phone calls, it was ascertained that the debited amount had been wrongly credited to an un-authorized account. The failed transaction amount of Rs.2,16,791/- was re-credited only on 30.01.2019 to the account of the complainant after a long time gap of 622 days. The complainant was facing the penal action from the Sales Tax Department because of the failure to set right the missing credit in time. The State Tax Officer vide his notice dated 08.02.2019 has levied an interest of Rs.94,665/- on the complainant for the delayed payment of the said Rs.2,16,791/-. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay the interest amount of Rs.94,665/- levied by the State Tax officer on the complainant consequent on the delayed payment with 12% interest from 18.05.2017 till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
The opposite party filed version disputing the complainant’s allegations that the complainant was maintaining a current account bearing No.0918261010233 in the name of M/s. Orient Timber Depot. The complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary party since the complaint was filed in the name of D.Mayilvaganan, whereas the account stands in the name of M/s. Orient Timber Depot and therefore this complaint as filed in not maintainable. It was found that during the course of his business on 18.05.2017 the complainant had made an online payment of Rs.2,16,791/- in favour of Commercial Tax Department, Villivakkam Assessment Circle, Government of Tamil Nadu towards his VAT due. The online payment though made had not got credited for the reason not known to the opposite party and it was due to the fault of the complainant as he had failed to follow the procedure required for making the payment. The failed transaction had also come to the notice of the complainant only on 16.08.2018 when a notice was slapped on him by the Sales Tax Department. When an online tax transaction was done by the user he would get a cyber receipt as an acknowledgement for having done the transaction successfully. If the account was debited but cyber receipt is not generated, then the user can regenerate the cyber receipt by choosing “REGENERATE CYBER RECEIPT’ before cut-off time on that date, failing which transaction was considered as a failed transaction and the amount would be reverted by the nodal branch on the next working day after tallying the pooling GL. However in the instant case the complainant had not generated the cyber receipt even though the account was debited but cyber receipt was not received hence the same became a failed transaction. The amount had not been credited at the payee’s end due to the mistake of the complainant. Even assuming without admitting that there had been a technical issue on the side of the opposite party, the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the opposite party on the very next day. However having remained silent for a period of more than one year and 4 months, the complainant cannot say that there had been lapse on the part of the opposite parties. It was submitted that they have not received a letter from the complainant on 10.09.2018. The first complaint received through email from the Customer Service Section, Chennai Circle Office, raising the issue on non-credit for the payment made to the Sales Tax Department on 18.05.2018 and hence he had made several visits to the opposite party and enquired about the failed transaction was false. After receiving the email from the complainant on 13.11.2018 the opposite party had written letter to the Department of Information technology, Head Office and Nungambakkam Branch to trace the non-credit and since the same pertained to more than one and half years the same could not be tracked immediately. Instead of affording an opportunity to the opposite party the complainant had sent several complaints to the banking Ombudsman, however the same was not redressed due to the fact that it was time barred. After all efforts the amount was re-credited to the complainant’s account on 30.01.2019 by the opposite party. It was submitted that the amount was lying in pooling GL and not wrongly credited to an “unauthorised account” as stated by the complainant. If the complainant had brought to the notice of the opposite party about the failed transaction the very next day, the same could have been tracked immediately and the amount would have been re-credited to his account. After remaining silent and negligent the complainant cannot now shift the blame on the part of the opposite parties. Thus stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A12. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and submitted documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were marked on their side.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not crediting the payment made by the complainant an amount of Rs.2,16,791/- to the payees account thereby committing deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Bank Statement issued by the 1st opposite party dated 18.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Final notice for non-payment of Tax issued by State Tax Officer, Villivakkam Circle dated 16.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;
Complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party dated 10.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Email sent by complainant to Banking Ombudsman dated 12.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;
Reply of Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated 23.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;
Email sent to the 1st opposite party dated 13.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;
Complainant sent letter to Banking Ombudsman dated 17.12.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Legal notice sent to the opposite parties dated 04.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A8;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A9;
Letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 30.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A10;
Letter sent by complainant to the opposite parties dated 02.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A11;
Letter from State Tax Officer dated 08.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A12;
On the side of opposite parties the following documents were submitted in proof of their defence;
Email from Department of Technology, Head Office, Bengaluru dated 21.08.2019 was marked as Ex.B1;
Forwarded email of complainant sent by circle office to 1st opposite party dated 13.11.2018 was marked as Ex.B2;
Email sent by 1st opposite party dated 08.01.2019 was marked as Ex.B3;
Email sent by Nodal Officer, Canara Bank dated 09.01.2019 was marked as Ex.B4
Letter sent by 1st opposite party to complainant dated 14.01.2019 was marked as Ex.B5;
Email sent by 1st opposite party dated 18.01.2019 were marked as Ex.B6 & Ex.B7;
Email sent by DIT Wing, Canara Bank dated 22.01.2019 & 25.01.2019 were marked as Ex.B8 & Ex.B9;
Email sent by the 1st opposite party dated 25.01.2019 & 30.01.2019 were marked as Ex.B10 & Ex.B11;
Email sent by Nungambakkam Branch dated 30.01.2019 was marked as Ex.B12;
Email sent by 1st opposite party dated 31.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A13;
Statement of Account showing re-credit was marked as Ex.A14;
Point No.1:-
Heard both counsels appearing for the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by them. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that when payment was made on 18.05.2017 through the opposite party’s Bank to the Commercial Tax Department inspite of the same debited the same was not credited to the payees account. Only when the complainant received a notice dated 16.08.2018 with regard to non payment of Tax from Sales Tax Office he came to know that the amount was not credited to the Commercial Tax Department by the opposite party. When he approached them there was no proper response and nearly after a period of 622 days it was re-credited to the complainant’s account. Further due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has to pay a penalty of Rs.94,665/-. Thus it is argued by him that the complainant was not made known about the failed transaction as he was in belief that the amount has been credited to the payee’s account. There is no chance for him to doubt about the transaction until he received the notice from the Sales Tax Department and thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the complaint itself is not maintainable as M/s. Orient Timber Depot was not made a party. Further complainant ought to have been aware of the failed transaction. Further written complaint was given only on 13.11.2018 and immediately letter was given vide Ex.B3 & Ex.B4, traced the non credit. The complaint also given to the ombudsman was also rejected as the issue is beyond the period of 30 days. Thus contending that the bank has taken every effort which is evident as per Ex.B6 to Ex.B11 stating there is no deficiency in service on their side, the counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On appreciation of the documents submitted by the complainant it is evident that vide Ex.A1 the Bank Statement issued by the 1st opposite party on 18.05.2017 an amount of Rs.2,16,791/- has been withdrawn from the complainant’s account, thus proving that the online payment made by the complainant was successful. Notice issued for non payment of Tax dated 16.08.2018 has been filed as Ex.A2. The complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party on 10.09.2018 informing them that the amount of Rs.2,16,791/-was debited from his account but the same was not credited to the Sales Tax Department and therefore sought an acknowledgement for the payment made. The complaint sent to the Ombudsman was marked as Ex.A4. The complaint was disposed by the banking Ombudsman as time barred. The legal notice sent to the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A8. After receipt of the legal notice, on 30.01.2019 the 1st opposite party has reversed and re-credited the failed transaction amount of Rs.2,16,791/- to the complainant’s account No.0918261010233 along with Statement of Accounts showing the credit.
It was submitted by the opposite parties that the complaint filed is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties M/s. Orient Timber Depot as the complainant is the proprietor. The said contention lacks significance as though the account stands in the name of M/s. Orient Timber Depot it is even accepted by the opposite parties that the complainant is the proprietor of the same. When the complainant is operating the said account the complaint filed by the proprietor/complainant could not be said to be a crucial error rendering the complaint not maintainable. Also Consumer Protection Act being Social Welfare Legislation and Consumer complaint being adjudicated in summary manner, more technicalities could not be entertained.
On the merits it is seen that when the complainant approached the Regional Office to know about the missing credit it was found and informed by the opposite parties that the debited amount has been wrongly credited to an unauthorized account. It is not disputed by the opposite parties that the complainant had made online payment and that the said amount was debited from their account. When the complainant found that the amount was debited towards the online payment he would have been in a bono fide belief that the same was credited to the payee’s account. As contended by the opposite parties in their pleadings there is no procedure to be followed by the complainant to see that whether the debited amount was credited to the concerned person, once it is found that the payment was successful by the complainant. The technical issues behind crediting of the payment to the payee’s account may not known to the complainant. When he was not aware of the same there is no chance for the complainant to doubt the transaction and to make any follow up to see that the amount was credited to the payee’s account. In such circumstances the version of the complainant that he was aware of the non credit of the amount only after receipt of the notice from the State Tax Officer, Villivakkam Assessment Circle could not create any doubt. It is also seen that even though the factom that the amount was not credited was brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties as early as on 10.09.2018 the opposite parties found that it was credited to an unauthorized account instead of the concerned payee’s account and the same was re-credited to the complainant only on 30.01.2019. In such circumstances no fault could be found on the part of the complainant for the non credit of the amount. In said scenario the defence raised by the opposite parties that it is for the complainant to have follow up after payment made could not be accepted and it is clear that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service in not crediting the online payment debited from the complainant’s account to the payee’s account i.e. “STATE TAX OFFICER, VILLIVAKKAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE”. On their words it could be held that it is the responsibility of the opposite parties to see that the amount paid through their Account was credited to the respective Account by appropriate procedures merely stating ignorance could not be accepted. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not crediting the amount and had caused a delay of 622 days in re-crediting the same thereby causing monetary loss to the complainant by their act thus we direct the opposite parties to pay the interest of Rs.94,665/- paid by the complainant due to delay payment. We also award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him and also taking that the amount of Rs.2,16,791/- the complainant’s money was returned after 622 days without any interest which amounted to a monetary loss to the complainant and we also award cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them jointly and severally
a) To pay the interest amount of Rs.94,665/-(Rupees ninety four thousand six hundred sixty five only) paid by the complainant to the State Tax Officer, Villivakkam Assessment Circle due to non credit of the online payment by the opposite parties within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of March 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 18.05.2017 Bank Statement issued by the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A2 16.08.2018 Final notice for non-payment of Tax issued by State Tax Officer, Villivakkam Circle. Xerox
Ex.A3 10.09.2019 Complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 12.10.2018 Email sent by complainant to Banking Ombudsman. Xerox
Ex.A5 23.10.2018 Reply of Banking Ombudsman to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 13.11.2018 Email sent to the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A7 17.12.2018 Complainant sent lettter to Banking Ombudsman. Xerox
Ex.A8 04.01.2019 Legal notice sent to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A9 ................. Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A10 30.01.2019 1st opposite party sent a letter to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A11 02.02.2019 Letter sent by complainant to the opposite parties Xerox
Ex.A12 08.02.2019 Letter from State Tax Office. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 21.08.2019 Email from Department of Technology Head Office, Bengaluru. Xerox
Ex.B2 13.11.2018 Forwarded email of complainant sent by circle office to 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B3 08.01.2019 Email sent by 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B4 09.01.2019 Email sent by Nodal Officer, Canara Bank. Xerox
Ex.B5 14.01.2019 Letter sent by 1st opposite party to complainant. Xerox
Ex.B6 18.01.2019 Email sent by 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B7 18.01.2019 Email sent by 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B8 22.01.2019 Email sent by DIT Wing, Canara Bank. Xerox
Ex.B9 25.01.2019 Email sent by DIT Wing, Canara Bank. Xerox
Ex.B10 25.01.2019 Email sent by 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B11 30.01.2019 Email sent by 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B12 30.01.2019 Email sent by Nungambakkam Branch. Xerox
Ex.B13 31.01.2019 Email sent by 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B14 .............. Statement of Account showing re-credit. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
