BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.104 of 2019
Date of Institution : 05.03.2019
Date of Decision : 16.10.2019.
Ravi Arora, 58 years c/o M/s Ravi Enterprises, Suratgarhia Bazaar, Old Committee Street, Sirsa District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
- UCO Bank through its Manager at UCO Bank, Sirsa Branch, Additional Mandi, Sirsa.
- Bank of India, through its Manager, Sirsa Branch, Begu Road, Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………..PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL .……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is customer of UCO Bank having its branch at Sirsa vide current account no.14320500000436. That on 11.6.2018, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.63,840/- vide NEFT to M/s V.K. Trading company Bathinda under its account No.649930110000033 with IFSC code BKID0006499 of Bank of India Bathinda branch and UTR of UCO Bank for this NEFT transaction is UCBAH18162665977, whereas the UTR of Bank of India for this NEFT transaction is SAA136585914. That the above said amount was debited from the above account of complainant maintained by him at UCO Bank but the same was not credited to the account of above beneficiary maintained at Bank of India. It is further averred that on cross checking, the complainant found that inadvertently in the form filled for the purpose of NEFT transaction, mistakenly the account number was mentioned as 949130110000033 instead of 649930110000033. However, the IFSC Code as well as the name of the recipient were all correct. That later on enquiry, the complainant came to know that the above mistakenly mentioned account number relates to Bank of India, Itarsi Branch (Bhopal) and does not fall under the IFSC code mentioned in the NEFT form. That the NEFT form requires three particulars of the recipient i.e. account number, IFSC code and name of the beneficiary account holder. For the purposes of bank transfer, it is required that either all the three or at least two parameters out of three should be correct. However, in the present matter, except the mistakenly entered account number, no other parameter has been checked by the ops while transferring the amount. It is further averred that surprisingly, the account number to which the amount has been transferred does not have the same IFSC code rather it relates to some other branch of the bank. Had the ops checked the IFSC code alongwith the account number for why they were duty bound or had they checked the name of beneficiary account holder, this transaction would have been cancelled. That the complainant immediately after coming to know about the same contacted his Bank Manager at UCO Bank, Sirsa and made a written complaint in this regard but no response was received. Then complainant raised this issue with the higher officers of UCO Bank under complaint No.P1432090315160618 Sirsa 025 as well as that of Bank of India and even raised the matter before Banking Ombudsman under complaint No.201819016001813 dated 20.8.2018 but surprisingly no favorable response has been received in this regard. It is further averred that UCO Bank as well as Bank of India have agreed that the amount has been transferred wrongly without checking the parameters but now even after passing of about six months period, no steps have been taken by either of the banks to refund the amount to the complainant. That vide reply dated 13.7.2018 received by the complainant from Itarsi Branch of Bank of India, it revealed that the name of the customer to whom the amount has been wrongly credited is Mr. Ram Kumar Rai and that the customer had been contacted and he is ready to refund the amount but simultaneously the Bank of India alleged that it is a mistake on the part of UCO Bank. That after a lengthy communication vide email, the NEFT, Centralized Bank Office Operations Department Head Office Bank of India vide its email dated 13.8.2018 agreed for refund of the amount, however, stated that the funds are short in the wrong account. That complainant had got issued a registered legal notice to the ops in this regard on 28.10.2018 vide email calling upon them to refund the amount of Rs.63,840/- alongwith up to date interest at the banking rates and further to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the harassment caused to the complainant because of negligence in services provided by the bank within 15 days from the date of this notice but to no effect. That the complainant again contacted the ops many a times in this regard but none of them is paying any heed to the request of complainant and flatly refused to refund the amount. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per record of answering op bank, an amount of Rs.63,840/- has been transferred vide NEFT as per instruction of the complainant given on back side of the cheque by the complainant. It is wrongly asserted that complainant has informed account no.64993011000033 rather the complainant filled account no.949130110000033, hence as per the instructions of the complainant, the said amount was transferred to the account number filled by complainant. It is further submitted that account of complainant has been debited as per instructions/ voucher of NEFT filled by complainant. The complainant himself is liable and responsible for the negligence on his own part and there is no negligence or fault on the part of answering op bank. However, the bank is making efforts to get refund of the amount to cooperate the complainant. As and when the complainant has informed the answering op in this regard, the answering op bank has taken steps for the refund of the amount in order to cooperate the complainant. It is further submitted that the notice got issued by complainant to the answering op was not based on true facts. But, detailed reply to the notice was given by the bank through their counsel vide reply dated 10.11.2018. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant as well as op no.1 produced their evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of application Ex.C1, copies of emails Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, reply to legal notice Ex.C5 and copy of statement of account Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Tara Chand Garg, Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.RW1/A, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R1, copy of postal receipt Ex.R2, copy of application Ex.R3 and copy of cheque Ex.R4.
7. From the evidence of complainant, it is proved on record that complainant is holding a current account with op no.1 bearing No.14320500000436 and issued a cheque of Rs.63,840/- on 11.6.2018 in favour of op no.1 with an endorsement of transfer of this amount vide NEFT to M/s V.K. Trading company Bathinda in its account and UTR number of this transaction of UCO Bank is UCBAH18162665977 whereas the UTR of Bank of India for this NEFT transaction is SAA136585914 and this amount was debited in the account of complainant, but however, same was not transferred to the beneficiary. It is apparently clear from the contents of complaint that complainant had inadvertently mentioned account number as 949130110000033 though it was 649930110000033, but however, op no.1 without going through the endorsement which was made by complainant on overleaf of cheque transferred this amount to the incorrect account number 949130110000033 which is of Bank of India, Itarsi Branch (Bhopal) which is in the name of one Ram Kumar Rai. The moment complainant came to know about same, complainant lodged many complaints with ops bank by way of emails and continued to make correspondence through emails and even legal notice was served upon ops by way of email through counsel Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate, but however, payment was not transferred to the beneficiary M/s V.K. Trading company Bathinda. It is settled principle of law that while transferring the amount through NEFT, it is legal obligation of the banker to cheque the name of the parties, account number of the parties and IFSC code of the concerned bank. Though, it is admitted fact on record that account number was inadvertently given wrong by complainant, but however, copy of cheque, endorsement clearly indicates the name of V.K. Trading company was categorically mentioned with IFSC code number, but however, this amount was transferred in the wrong account without applying mind by the official of the bank who was working on that date which clearly appears to be negligence on the part of official of the bank for which bank is liable to compensate the complainant.
8. It is proved fact on record that neither op no.1 has made refund of the amount to the complainant nor op no.2 has made any refund of the amount nor they have placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that they have ever made their any best efforts to get amount recovered from the person in whose account amount has been transferred inadvertently. So, this all leads to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint against opposite party no.1 and direct op no.1 to make refund of the amount of Rs.63,840/- with interest of saving bank rate of interest from the date of transfer till actual payment to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, op no.1 is at liberty to get same recovered from op no.2 or person in whose favour amount has been transferred inadvertently or to initiate any proceedings in accordance with law. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:16.10.2019 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
