PER:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the opposite party No. 2 is zonal Office and opposite party No. 3 is Head Office of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The opposite party No. 1 is a banking branch and carrying on the Banking activities at the above mentioned address. The complainant is having a current account bearing No. 25080210000984 client ID No. 217855291 with the opposite party No. 1 having IFSC Code UCBA0002508 and Branch 2508 at village Fatehabad Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran. The complainant used to deposit and withdraw his money from the above said account for his personal use as well as for Petrol pump dealership i.e. being run by the complainant in the name and style of "Mini Service Station" as sole proprietor. On 18.05.2022, the complainant balance in the above said account was Rs. 4,76,809.42 Paise.  The above said remaining amount after the withdrawal of Rs. 5 Lakh by the Indian Oil Corporation from the above said account of the complainant. On 18.05.2022, Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1 made an RTGS bearing No. SBIN0006346/in the name of Range Officer for an amount of Rs.5,02,393/- from the above said account of the complainant, while the balance in the above said account of the complainant was Rs. 4,76,809/-. The opposite party also deducted charges for a sum of Rs. 2.23, Rs.2.23, Rs.24.75/- for the above said RTGS amount. The above said RIGS is not done by the complainant nor the complainant has directed/authorized in any manner, the staff of opposite party No.1 to do the same. The complainant has not signed any document giving permission to do the RTGS for the above said amount from above said current account of complainant. The said RTGS has been done by the Branch Manager without any kind of approval/ consent/ requisition of the complainant with the connivance of other staff of opposite party No.1. When the complainant noticed the above said illegal transaction entry in his above said account, the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.1 where the branch manager has asked the complainant that a wrong entry has got affected in his above said account by someone and same amount has been re-transferred/deducted from the above said account of the complainant through the above said RTGS. The Branch Manager duly stated to the complainant that the above said RTGS transaction dated 18.5.2022 has been done by him from the above said account of the complainant whereupon, the complainant duly requested to the branch Manager that the Branch Manager had illegally and unlawfully made RTGS transaction out of the above said account of the complainant and further requested to the Branch Manager to again credit/disburse the illegally deducted amount from the account of the complainant but the branch Manager flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. The above said RTGS transaction out of above said account of the complainant is illegal, unlawful and breach of trust as well as violation of banker customer relationship on the part of the opposite party No.1. No such wrong transaction took place or amount got credited in the account of the complainant whereby the above said amount has been wrongly credited in the account of the complainant as alleged by the branch manager of the opposite party No.3. The complainant has suffered a huge financial loss due to the above said irresponsible and illegal act done by the opposite party No.1. Due to the above said illegal act on the part of opposite party No.1, the status of above said account of the complainant has become -25612.79 Rupees on the said date. The complainant has miserably arranged to pay of his debts from the above said account. The above said illegal act is crystal clear proof of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has prayed the following relieves:-

1. The opposite parties may kindly be directed to re-credited/ reimburse the amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- illegally and unlawfully deducted from the account of the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 without any kind of authorization alongwith interest up to date at the rate of 18% P.A.
2. It is further prayed that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of opposite parties, on account of short come, deficient and negligent service may also be awarded to the complainant against the opposite parties, in the interest of justice, fair play and equity.  

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of Bank account statement bearing account No. 25080210000984 of UCO Bank, Branch Fatehabad from 19.3.2022 to 19.5.2022 Ex. C-2, Attested copy of Adhar Card of the complainant Ex. C-3, Attested copy of legal notice served upon the opposite party No. 1 by the complainant Ex. C-4, Attested copy of legal notice served upon the opposite party No. 2 by the complainant Ex. C-5, Attested copy of legal notice served upon the opposite party No. 3 by the complainant Ex. C-6, Original Postal Receipts regarding registry of legal notice served upon the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by complainant Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the opposite parties have not done anything wrong which could been term and deficiency in service, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complaint is misuse of process of law. The complainant has unnecessarily filed the complaint just to harass the opposite parties with the intention to extract money from the opposite parties. The opposite party received a mail from its another branch Bhanjanagar, in which they informed that a customer of their branch has transferred Rs. 5,02,393/- in your account No. 25080210000984 mistakenly instead of account No. 25280210000984 on 8.2.2022 and the above said transaction was made by one Forest Range officer through RTGS. The above said account bearing No. 25080210000984 belongs to the firm Mini Service Station, Goindwal Sahib, Road Fatehbad, District Tarn Taran of complainant and by initiating the opposite party sent an intimation through a postal letter on 4.3.2022 and requested the complainant “to check the entry at your end and provide us consent to transfer the amount to sender” and opposite party also disclosed the above said facts that the Range Officer had sent the RTGS for sum of Rs. 5,02,393/-  to the account of 25280210000984 but inadvertently, the said amount has been credited in the account of complainant bearing A/c No. 25080210000984 with the opposite party No. 1. An e-mail dated 6^th May 2022 has also been sent to UCO Bank Fatehabad Branch to Mini Station. The opposite party No. 1 had requested the complainant to refund the above said amount from which it has been received in the said account. The sender bank i.e. State Bank of India after getting the requisite documents had sent the instructions to the opposite party for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- to the Range Officer from where the above said amount has been received through RTGS. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 had debited the said amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- from the plaintiff’s account and sent the same to the Range Office through his banker from which the same has been received/ credited. As such, the opposite party No. 1 has not wrongly debited the said amount from the account of plaintiff rather refunded the same to the account of the sender of the wrong RTGS. The complainant has filed a wrong and baseless complaint against the opposite party. An e-mail is also received in UCO Bank Fatehabad Branch from RTGS Cell Mumbai to return funds to sender Bank after obtaining recall cum indemnity letter from them dated 21.4.2022.  the transaction was just mistakenly done in the firm account of the complainant, the above said transaction was not for the complainant’s firm. The complainant has miserably failed to disclose that “Why a Range Officer made him a transaction for sum of Rs. 5,02,393/- ?. The complainant has not suffered a financial loss. No irreparable and illegal action done by the opposite party. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit Ex. R-1, self attested copy of letter of authority Ex. R-2, Self attested copy of statement of complainant firm’s account from 1.2.2022 to 19.5.2022 Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of letter dated 14.2.2022 sent by office of the Forest Range Officer, G. Udaygiri Range to UCO Bank Bhanjanagar to recall of refund the amount of Rs. 5,02,393 Ex. R-4, Self attested copy of letter dated 3.3.2022 of letter sent to the complainant Ex. R-5, Self attested copy of postal receipt dated 4.3.2022 of letter sent to complainant Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of letter dated 31.3.2022 sent by office of the Forest Range Officer, G.Udaygiri Range to State Bank of India to recall of erroneous NEFT Ex. R-7, Recall cum indemnity letter dated 29.4.2022 from SBI of erroneous NEFT Transaction Ex. R-8, Self attested copy of e-mail received from UCO Bank rtgsneftcell dated 19^th May 2022 to UCO Bank Fatehabad Branch Ex. R-9, Self attested copy of e-mail sent by UCO Bank Fatehabad dated 6^th May 2022 to Mini Station Ex. R-10,  Self attested copy of e-mail receive from rtgsneftcell dated 21.4.2022 Ex. R-11.  

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

4        Ld. Counsel for the complainant contented that the complainant is having a current account bearing No. 25080210000984 client ID No. 217855291 with the opposite party No. 1 having IFSC Code UCBA0002508. The complainant is having petrol pump dealer ship in the name and style of "Mini Service Station". On 18.05.2022, the complainant balance in the above said account was Rs. 4,76,809.42 Paise.  The above said remaining amount after the withdrawal of Rs. 5 Lakh by the Indian Oil Corporation from the above said account of the complainant. On 18.05.2022, Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1 made an RTGS bearing No. SBIN0006346/in the name of Range Officer for an amount of Rs.5,02,393/- from the above said account of the complainant, while the balance in the above said account of the complainant was Rs. 4,76,809/-. The opposite party also deducted charges for a sum of Rs. 2.23, Rs.2.23, Rs.24.75/- for the above said RTGS amount. The above said RIGS is not done by the complainant nor the complainant has directed/authorized in any manner, the staff of opposite party No.1 to do the same.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant further contended that the complainant has not signed any document as well as given any permission to someone for the alleged RTGS. The said RTGS has been done by the Branch Manager without any kind of approval/ consent/ requisition of the complainant with the connivance of other staff of opposite party No.1. When the complainant noticed said illegal transaction, he immediately approached the opposite party No.1 and made aware about the said transaction through RTGS. Further the complainant requested the Branch Manager that the said RTGS transaction dated 18.5.2022 may be credited in his account as this amount has been deducted illegally and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. 

5        On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the opposite party received a mail from its another branch Bhanjanagar, in which they informed that a customer of their branch has transferred Rs. 5,02,393/- in your account No. 25080210000984 mistakenly instead of account No. 25280210000984 on 8.2.2022 and the above said transaction was made by one Forest Range officer through RTGS. The above said account bearing No. 25080210000984 belongs to the firm Mini Service Station, Goindwal Sahib, Road Fatehbad, District Tarn Taran of complainant and by initiating the opposite party sent an intimation through a postal letter on 4.3.2022 and requested the complainant “to check the entry at your end and provide us consent to transfer the amount to sender” and opposite party also disclosed the above said facts that the Range Officer had sent the RTGS for sum of Rs. 5,02,393/-  to the account of 25280210000984 but inadvertently, the said amount has been credited in the account of complainant bearing A/c No. 25080210000984 with the opposite party No. 1. An e-mail dated 6^th May 2022 has also been sent to UCO Bank Fatehabad Branch to Mini Station. The opposite party No. 1 had requested the complainant to refund the above said amount from which it has been received in the said account. The sender bank i.e. State Bank of India after getting the requisite documents had sent the instructions to the opposite party for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- to the Range Officer from where the above said amount has been received through RTGS. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 had debited the said amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- from the plaintiff’s account and sent the same to the Range Office through his banker from which the same has been received/ credited. As such, the opposite party No. 1 has not wrongly debited the said amount from the account of plaintiff rather refunded the same to the account of the sender of the wrong RTGS. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further contended that the complainant has filed a wrong and baseless complaint against the opposite party. An e-mail is also received in UCO Bank Fatehabad Branch from RTGS Cell Mumbai to return funds to sender Bank after obtaining recall cum indemnity letter from them dated 21.4.2022.  The transaction was just mistakenly done in the firm account of the complainant, the above said transaction was not for the complainant’s firm. The complainant has miserably failed to disclose that “Why a Range Officer made him a transaction for sum of Rs. 5,02,393/- ?. The complainant has not suffered a financial loss. No irreparable and illegal action done by the opposite party. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6        From the combined and harmonious reading of pleadings and documents is going to prove on record that as per Ex. R-3, an amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- has been deposited in account No. 25080210000984 i.e. in the name of Mini Service Station Fatehabad and the said amount has been transferred through RTGS / SBIN0006346/Range Office, which clearly proved that an amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- has been received in the account of complainant on dated 8.2.2022. In this regard, Forest Range Officer, G Udayagiri Range vide Ex. R-4 wrote a letter to Branch Manager UCO Bank Bhajan Nagar, regarding the credit of above mentioned amount in to the account No. 25080210000948 instead of account No. 25280210000948. In this regard, State Bank of India G.Udayagiri ADB Branch also wrote a letter to the branch Manager UCO Bank Main Bazar Fatehabad to recall of erroneous NEFT transaction dated 8.2.2022 with UTR No. SBINR52022020866133510 for Rs. 5,02,393/-. Thereafter, as per Ex. R-5 on 3.3.2022, the Manager UCO Bank Fatehabad also wrote a letter to Manager/ Incharge Mini Service Station Fatehabad regarding the credit entry of Rs. 5,02,393/- in your current account No. 25080210000984 and further the manager of the branch requested the complainant to check the entry at your end and provide the consent to transfer the amount to sender. An indemnity bound was also singed between SBI ADB G Udyagiri and Forest Range Officer Udayagiri Range in this regard.  As per Ex. R-9, RTGS NEFT Cell Mumbai also requested the Fatehabad branch to remit the amount which was erroneously credited in the account of Mini Service Station Fatehabad.

7        As per Ex. R-10 a mail was also sent to the mini service station by the Branch Manager Fatehabad mentioning that an amount of Rs.5,02,393/- has been wrongly credited to your account on 8.2.2022 which was informed to you through Phone and letter and further requested to the complainant to check the details and provide us consent to return the money to the sender bank.  Further they mentioned that now he has received indemnity for the same amount and we have to return that amount of RTGS wrongly credited to your account to sender bank as per guidelines.

8        As per the above discussion it is crystal clear that an amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- has been inadvertently credited in the account of complainant on dated 8.2.2022 and same was also withdrawn on 18.5.2022. In this regard various letters as well mails were sent to the complainant, whereby, he was requested that kindly give the consent to the bank to withdraw the amount which has been wrongly credited in his account.  The complainant cannot raise the plea that the amount has been withdrawn without his consent from his current account. From the perusal of record it is very much clear that an amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- has been wrongly credited in to the account No. 25080210000984 instead of account No. 25280210000984 on 8.2.2022 and the said transaction was made by Forest Range Officer.  

9        In view of above discussion it is very much clear that the opposite parties have withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5,02,393/- from the account of complainant rightly. The complainant cannot say that the said amount has been withdrawn from his account without his knowledge. The opposite parties have made various efforts to make the complainant aware through the letters and emails qua the alleged transaction in his account. The complainant was many times requested to give the consent for the same but the complainant has failed to do the same. Infact the complainant should have come forward to the bank authorities for the alleged transaction to refund an amount of Rs. 5,02,393/-.  As such, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

10      In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

16.07.2024