Date of Filing :08.04.2021

Date of Disposal :01.07.2021

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:1st JULY 2021

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

APPEAL No 373/2021

 

M/s ENCOP Wires Pvt. Ltd.,

Industrial Area, Tarihal, Hubballi,

Rep. by Sri Anant Puranik

CEO

(By Mr Ajitkumar H Deshpande) Appellant

                                                 -Versus-

The Manager,

Vijaya Bank

(now known as Bank of  Baroda),

Lamington Road,

Hubballi.                    Respondent

-:ORDER:-

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.78/2019 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad.

 

2. The facts in brief that the Complainant is a customer of OP Bank with Current Account. On 01.03.2019, he had sent 2 Requisitions to OP Bank for transfer of 2 RTGS, along with Cheques for Rs.4,50,000/- & Rs.11,815/- respectively from his Account to the concerned Account numbers of the intended beneficiaries reflected therein. Thereafter, in view of the customers have complained that they have not received the payments, he approached the OP Bank, who then issued a letter dated 05.03.2019 conveying that due to oversight Rs.11,815/- & Rs.4,50,000/- were remitted  vice- versa and that he is trying to rectify the same. However, the OP failed to maintain his commitment and not taken any action for reversion of the faulty transactions. In view of the in-action & deficiency in service on the part of OP, he was put to financial difficulties and hence he got issued a Legal Notice to OP on 23.03.2019 for reversion of the transactions, for which OP neither replied nor complied with the demands made therein. Hence, the Complainant lodged the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to deposit Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.11,815/- to his Bank Account, to pay Rs.7,70,000/- towards reimbursement of loss of profit and Rs.7,68,000/- towards mental agony.

 

On service of Notice, OP entered appearance and filed his Version admitting receipt of 2 RTGS requisitions - one for Rs.4,50,000/- in the name of M/s. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd., and another for Rs.11,815/- in the name of Tumkur Merchant Credit Bank. OP pleaded that, immediately after coming to know about of mistake, the OP sent request letter to CITI Bank, Mumbai and also sent several e-mails for reversion of transaction of Rs.4,50,000/-, but the CITI  Bank  has  claimed  ownership on the fund transferred and it has informed that its customer M/s.Volkswagen has spoken to Ms Mamata Kubsad, Director of complainant company to close their loan A/c and to issue loan clearance certificate and therefore it has refused to reverse the transaction. Further pleaded that the Executive of Volkswagen informed that funds cannot be transferred, since the said amount is adjusted towards vehicle loan Account of the Complainant, though the complainant is beneficiary of the said transaction, he is illegally claiming for reversal of the transaction and in fact there is no loss caused to the complainant as wrong remittance is adjusted towards his loan Account only.  Hence, sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3. The District Forum on considering the Pleadings & Evidences led in by both the parties, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint in part and directed the OP to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the Order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of Complaint till its realization.

4. Being not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, Complainant is in Appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission 

5. Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant. 

6. Perused the Impugned Order & the Records.  It is not in dispute that, on 01.03.2019 the Complainant had sent requisitions to OP Bank, for affecting transfer of funds by way of 2 RTGS, along with 2 Cheques - one for Rs.4,50,000/- in the name of M/s. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd., and another cheque for Rs.11,815/- in the name of Tumkur Merchant Credit Bank, respectively.                   OP also admits the receipt of the requests for 2 RTGS payments and also admitted wrong remittance in respect of one of the RTGS,  amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-.

 

7. According to the Complainant, the payments requested by him to be sent through RTGS is not received by the intended beneficiaries and accordingly, he approached the OP, who assured for rectifying the same, but the same remains un-done.  The defense taken by the OP is that the Complainant continues to be the beneficiary of the transaction, wherein the amount stands adjusted towards his car loan only and is illegally claiming reversing of the transaction and due to which suffered financial difficulties.

 

8. According to OP, in his Version, had admitted the mistake on the part of its employees and taken a contention that inspite of sufficient efforts made for re-transfer of Rs.4,50,000/- but, same is not reversed by the CITI Bank, who claims that since the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has been adjusted towards the balance in the Loan Account of Smt. Mamata Kubasad, who is a Director of the Complainant’s entity.   Therefore, the said amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was not reversed by the Citi Bank, Mumbai.

 

9. It is also on record that the Director of the Complainant’s entity had availed a Car Loan from Citi Bank, wherein there was an amount overdue for payment and when the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was received, the same was adjusted towards the outstanding in the Loan Account, without the knowledge of the Borrower and thereafter, the Bank issued No Due Certificate.  In the instant case, OP’s action tantamount to deficiency in service and put the Complainant into embarrassing position. In view of the inability on the part of OP to rectify the error committed by it,  we find it a fit case to enhance the Compensation of Rs.20,000/- ordered by the District Commission to Rs 30,000/-,  which would reasonably meet the ends of justice. In view of the reason mentioned in the Affidavit filed in support of the IA, under Sec 5 of Limitation Act for the delay in preferring the Appeal due to Covid-19 pandemic disease is hereby accepted and accordingly, the same stands condoned.

 

10.  For all the aforesaid reasons, this Appeal is allowed, the Impugned Order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.78/219 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad is modified and OP is directed to pay Rs 30,000/- as Compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of Copy of this Order.  Failing which that said amount carried interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.

 

11. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

Lady Member     Judicial Member                    President

*s