Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/52/2017

R.Vimala, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager , ICICI Bank Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Malini S.Jayanthi

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 30.01.2017

Date of Reservation      : 27.06.2022

Date of Order               : 12.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 52/2017

TUESDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF JULY 2022

Mrs. R.Vimala,

Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd.,

No.17/12, Arcot Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                           ... Complainant                               

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

   ICICI Bank Limited,

   “Landmark”,

   Race Course Circle,

   Vadodara,

   Bomaby – 390007.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

   ICICI Bank Limited,

   No.69, Arcot Road,

   Chennai – 600 024.                                                 ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant            : M/s. N.S.Malini & S.Jayanthi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties       : M/s. Sai Krishnan Associates

 

        On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant to treat the written arguments as oral arguments and after having heard the oral arguments of the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally pay Rs.10 Lakhs for the business loss and to pay Rs.9.90 Lakhs towards damages for the mental agony and torture and to pay the cost of this complaint.

 

2.    Brief facts of the Complaint are as follows:-

The Complainant represented as the Director of the travel agency and running the same for a number of years with unblemished records. In the course of business, She is arranging trips to foreign countries and has been more successful in her travel business for years together. She has regular customer and has a current account No: 057705000778 with the 2nd Opposite Party and the entire dealings of her business is only through the service of the 2nd Opposite Party. Her company was accredited and strengthened by their possession of IATA (International Air Transport Association), the most prestigious esteemed official document to run their travel business and that with the certification of IATA, and was more successful in travel business by availing insurance facilities and booking air tickets on International levels and above all, without any Bank Guarantee. In the year 2009, She obtained the certificate from the said office Singapore by depositing the prescribed amount and since then, with due diligence she was renewing the same. On 25.04.2016, she approached the 2^nd Opposite Party for the transfer of funds to renew the certificate by paying Rs.82,810/- to the office of IATA having its office at Singapore through NEFT by duly submitting the NEFT form at about 3.30.P.M, since she was more particular in the transaction to be approved without any skirmish or any problems, She repeatedly requested the 2nd Opposite Party to be vigilant in transferring the money to IATA. On receipt of the said form, the 2nd Opposite Party also assured to do so. On the very same day at about 3.38 P.M. She received a SMS from the 2nd Opposite Party that the amount is debited. Upon verification of her bank balance, She understood that the transaction was completed under the bonafide belief that the money was transferred to the IATA office on the very same day. To her shock and dismay on 25.04.2016 at about 6.35 P.M. she received a message that "NEFT RETURN". Immediately she was totally traumatized and tried to approach the 2nd Opposite Party. But, by that time the 2nd Opposite Party bank was closed. She inferred that due to the inaccurate entry of the account number, there was a failure in the NEFT transaction and the prescribed amount of Rs.82,810/- was not transferred to the concerned IATA. On the very next day i.e on 26.04.2016, She approached the 2nd  Opposite Party for clarification of the transaction and pointed out the erroneous entry of her bank account number during the NEFT process by the 2nd Opposite Party. As the NEFT transaction was completed on 25.04.2016 itself, but the fund was not transferred in favor of IATA. Because of that reason Office of IATA at Singapore cancelled the Complainant's Certification, and deleted her Company's name from the IATA catalog and placed the Complainant in a great mental torture. Lack of concentration and inattentiveness in which the transaction was carried out by the 2nd Opposite Party lead her to run pillar to post, losing their name and fame in the business circle and also left with no insurance facilities which is the most warranted in her business transactions. Above all, her company's name is placed under the defaulter roll and could not directly covenant with all the Domestic and International Airliners that caused heavy damages in her travel business. For further course of action taken by the 2nd Opposite Party for the second time on 26.04.2016 at about 10.45 A.M by transferring the funds correctly in favor of IATA without a cheque nor any NEFT form carried out successfully, which would clearly show that was done only to appease the complainant and suppress the deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. Since she had lost the opportunity of continuing as one of the members in the IATA, She could not enjoy all the facilities and other perks. She had received a notice from IATA about the deletion of their company from their list, and the same has been communicated to other IATA members by defaming her company name. Because of the lack of service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party, she was placed to undergo untold hardship and great mental torture and She could not further engage herself in the travel business and faced financial crisis also. Further, she was not able to do the business in the absence of the insurance facilities. As a defaulter to other trade agents, the IATA had directed the Complainant to remit all flight charges directly to the concerned Airlines and further demanded Bank Guarantee which the Complainant was not in a position to provide at that time of financial crisis. In addition, the IATA had directed the complainant to remit 128 Dollars (Rs.8000/-) which has been remitted and also on 12.09.2016 She was bound to give Bank guarantee for Rs 6,50,000/- as the entire error was on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. On 27.04.2016 she approached the 2nd Opposite Party for her relief, seeking a letter from them to communicate the mistake and error to the IATA office. Accordingly, on 28.04.2016 a communication has been dispatched to the concerned office stating that the Complainant was having sufficient funds at the time of NEFT, due to typo error the same got rejected mentioning the account number. Hence it was crystal clear that the entire scenario was only due to the deficiency of service of the 2nd Opposite Party. In the due course She incurred monetary loss in her business purely because of the deficiency of service of the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties were only responsible. Moreover, it was very difficult for her to restore the business once again. Hence the Complaint.

4.  Brief facts of the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party are as follows:-

The Complainant had willfully and wantonly suppressed such facts and material in order to generate illegal gains and tarnish the Bank's reputation. That M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd is not a CONSUMER as defined in Sec 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant approached the Opposite Party bank seeking financial assistance intended purely for commercial purposes. M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt. Ltd has a current account bearing no. 057705000778 and the same is not held personally by the Complainant as stated in the Complaint. She is a Managing Director to the said Concern approached 2^ndOpposite Party at Arcot Road, Chennai on 25.04.2016 to make a NEFT transaction for an amount of Rs.82810/- from the account of M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt. Ltd., favouring IATA BSP INDIA LTD, bearing Account No.INTH1430667 with Deutsche Bank. While updating the beneficiary account number, the concerned official of the Opposite Party had consulted the Complainant across the Counter seeking clarification with respect to whether the alphabets and the numeric digits mentioned in the aforementioned account need to be mentioned in the account number column for the purposes of effecting the NEFT Transfer since alphabets do not form part of the account number as such usually. Even Complainant not able to confirm the same, subsequently the NEFT entry was rejected by the system since the account number was incomplete, and the amount debited was credited back into the account of M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt. Limited at 18:35 IST on the same day. The Opposite Parties were alerted by the Complainant about the error in the said NEFT Transaction, and steps were taken immediately to redress the matter. Accordingly, the transaction was completed immediately on 26.04.2016 itself. Furthermore complainant’s certification was cancelled by IATA within a short period of time owing to the error in remittance of the requisite monies is denied as false as the same is evidenced by the notice of irregularity issued by IATA to M/s Naer Air Travel Services Ltd dated 26.04.2016 which was shared with the 2^ndOpposite Party. The notice states that the requisite amount of Rs. 82,810/- must be received by IATA before April 27, 2016. Failure of which, default action would be taken against M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd, also clearly states that six instances of irregularity in twelve consecutive months will be declared as default and their accreditation will be cancelled. The notice also stipulates that a late remittance fee of USD 128.38 had to be remitted owing to late settlement of dues. In view of the same, as a goodwill gesture, the Opposite Parties issued a letter to IATA stating that there was a typographical error on the part of the Branch, owing to which the transaction could not be completed and the Opposite Party claims that the Complainant had approached the opposite party only on 25.04.2016 evening, the same shows that the Complainant has, in no sense, acted in a diligent manner. Moreover, in view of the fact that the complainant was aware and acquiesced to the entry of the account number in the system. The Opposite Party reiterated that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Complainant in her personal capacity with the Opposite Parties. The cause of action does not relate to the Complainant in her personal capacity.The Opposite Parties cannot be held responsible for any personal loss to the Complainant. Further, there is no monetary loss suffered by M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd. On account of no disciplinary action having been taken by IATA. Hence the Complaint is to be dismissed.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12 were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2  were marked.

5.    Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant can maintain the Complaint in her individual capacity before this Commission?

2. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986?

3. Whether the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service to the Complainant?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point Nos.1 to 3:-

The first and foremost point to be considered in the instant case by this Commission Whether the Complainant can maintain the Complainant in her individual capacity before this Commission.

The instant Complaint has been filed on the allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties in respect of  non effecting of Fund Transfer (NEFT) on request made by M/s.Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd, by the 2^nd Opposite Party. In the Instant case the Consumer Complaint has been filed by the Director of M/s.Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd, that too in her own name and not in the name of the Company. On submissions made and on reading of the Complaint it is clear that the name alone has been mentioned in the Short cause title of the Complaint as Mrs.R.Vimala M/s.Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd,as well as averred herself as a Director of the said Company as mentioned in the Long cause title of the Complaint as “Mrs.R.Vimala Director, M/s.Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd”, when the Company being a Private Limited Company by legal entity, the Complaint has not been filed by a proper person, i.e., not by M/s.Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd, as there was no relationship between the Complainant, R.Vimala and the Opposite Parties Bank. Further, no board resolution has been produced authorising the Complainant R.Vimala to file the instant Complaint against the Opposite Parties, as averred in the Long Cause title. On the above discussions, this Commission holds that the Complaint filed by the Complainant R.Vimala has no locus standi to file the Complaint in her personal capacity on behalf of the Company, M/s.Naer Air Travel Services Pvt Ltd, being the Legal entity. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Complaint filed by the Complainant in her individual capacity is not maintainable. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.       

It is also important to decide whether the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, and for the said purpose Sec.2 (1) (d) is reproduced hereunder:

        (d) “consumer” means any person who,— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) 8 [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 8 [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 2 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

On careful reading of the Complaint and the Exhibits marked in support of the Complaint filed by the Complainant, it is clear that M/s.Naer air Travel Services Pvt Ltd, a private limited Company is running a business of booking Air tickets and the said Company had maintained a Current Account with the Opposite Parties Bank for its business purpose, where  commercial transactions were involved in the said account as found in Ex.B-2. Further the transaction alleged for non-transferring of funds by NEFT to IATA having its Office at No.111, Somerset Road, #14-05, Triple One Somerset, Singapore, against the Opposite Parties is purely of Commercial in nature, as the same is only for its Agency business. And the Judgment relied upon by the Opposite Parties on the Order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Sutlej Industries Ltd Vs- Punjab National Bank, wherein it was held that since the Complainant/Appellant had hired or availed the services of the respondent Bank for a commercial purpose it is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which squarely apply to the instant case.  On the above discussions, this Commission holds that the Complainant is of the considered view that the Complainant is not a Consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.       

Further, the Complainant contended that because of Non transfer of Funds initially, which was made of subsequently, the Office of IATA at Singapore cancelled the Complainant's Certification, and deleted her Company's name from the IATA catalog and she had received a notice from IATA about the deletion of their company from their list, and the same has been communicated to other IATA members by defaming her company name,  and further from Ex.B-2 being the Overdue/Dishonoured Remittance Demand for immediate Payment – Notice of Irregularity dated  26.04.2016 sent by IATA to NAER AIR TRAVEL SERVICES PVT LTD, wherein it si clearly stated that “ In accordance with the provisions of the IATA Passenger Sales Agency Rules, we hereby demand immediate settlement of the sum in question. Funds must be received in good value in the Clearing Bnak before its close of business on the first working day following the date of this demand i.e., 27 April 2016. Failure to settle this overdue remittance by 27 April 2016 would result in default action being taken in respect of all your Approved Locations”. And contended that because of the erractic performance of the 2nd Opposite party she was forced to undergo loss of monetary benefits, to lose her name and fame which she earned in the travel business.

The Opposite Parties Bank contended that the Complainant Company approached for funds transfer on 25.04.2016 in the evening hours and further from Ex.B-2 being the Overdue/Dishonoured Remittance Demand for immediate Payment – Notice of Irregularity dated  26.04.2016, it could be inferred that the due date of remittance was on 25.04.2016, hence the Complainant had not acted in a diligent manner and further on 25.04.2016 at 6.35 pm the error in NEFT transaction was well aware to the Complainant, would have remitted though other manner before the expiry of the Due date. Hence they have not committed any deficiency of service. 

From Ex.A-2 the National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT) challan dated 25.04.2016, presented for funds transfer in the name of the Company, M/s.Naer Air Travel Services (P) Ltd, by the Complainant, the Name and Account Number of the Beneficiary Bank has been mentioned as “Deutsche Bank A/c IATA BSP India, INTH1430667”, though as per Ex.A-3 the said Company had sufficient funds, the above said fund transfer got rejected due to invalid account number as found in the Letter dated 26.04.2016 sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party Bank to International Air Transport Association (IATA), No.111, Somerset Road, # 14-05, Triple One Somerset, Singapore, as found in Ex.A-4 and also about sufficient funds available in the Current Account of the said Company as found in the Letters (2 Nos) dated 28.04.2016 sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party Bank to International Air Transport Association (IATA), No.111, Somerset Road, # 14-05, Triple One Somerset, Singapore, as found in Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6. And from Ex.A-9 and Ex.A-12 being the reply dated 20.08.2016 and 10.11.2016 issued by the 1st Opposite Party Bank it was clearly mentioned that the Account Number of the Beneficiary Bank given with alphabets and numeric i.e, “INTH1430667” has not been confirmed by the Complainant and when processed the Fund Transfer with numeric to the Beneficiary Bank Account, the same got rejected as the account number was incomplete and the said amount of transfer was credited to the Current account of the Company on the same day and thereafter on 26.04.2016 when the same was brought to the notice of the 1st Opposite Party Bank, the transaction was re-initiated with the correct particulars provided and the Fund transfer was made successfully. Further From Ex.A-10 the reply notice dated 14.09.2016 issued to the 1st Opposite Party, wherein in Paragraph No.4 it was mentioned that “ On 26.04.2016 at 10.30 hours, up on pointing out the above referred error by my client, your staff correctly typed as “INTH 430667”. If your staff had correctly typed, there could not be any return at all.” But as per Ex.A-2 the NEFT Challan dated 25.04.2016 presented by the Complainant clearly shows that the account number of the Beneficiary Bank has been mentioned as “INTH1430667” and not as mentioned in Ex.A-10, ie., “INTH 430667”.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission comes to a conclusion that that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, as initially fund transfer has been initiated based on the NEFT Challan as per Ex.A-2 presented by the Complainant, has got rejected due to invalid Account Number of the Beneficiary Bank and thereafter re-initiated the fund transfer on Correct information given by the Complainant about the Account Number of the Beneficiary Bank, the funds was transferred successfully. Hence, this Commission is of the Considered view that the Opposite parties had not committed deficiency of service to the Complainant.

Point No.4:-         

As discussed and decided Point Nos. 1 to 3 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the Complaint.

In the result, the Complaint is dismissed. No Cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  12^th day of July 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                     T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                   MEMBER I                                                                         PRESIDENT 

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	25.04.2016	Copy of the Cheque
Ex.A2	25.04.2016	Copy of Pay in Slip
Ex.A3	-	Bank Statement
Ex.A4	26.04.2016	Letter by 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A5	28.04.2016	Letter by 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A6	28.04.2016	Letter by 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A7	05.05.2016	Invoice-IATA
Ex.A8	09.07.2016	Legal Notice by Complainant
Ex.A9	20.08.2016	Reply Letter by 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A10	14.09.2016	Rejoinder by Complainant
Ex.A11	15.09.2016	Acknowledgement by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A12	10.11.2016	Reply letter by 2nd Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1		Current Account Statement of M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt. Ltd bearing No.057705000778
Ex.B2		Letter dated 26.04.2016 issued to M/s Naer Air Travel Services Pvt. Ltd.

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                          T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                          B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                          MEMBER I                                                           PRESIDENT