BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.263 of 2014
Date of Instt. 06.08.2014
Date of Decision :26.10.2015
Narinder Gupta aged about 35 years son of Vidya Sagar Gupta, R/o 122-Dilbagh Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Western Union Services India Pvt Ltd., having its head office at Ground Floor, Fortune 2000 Building, Unit No.G-101, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 through its authorized representative.
2. Reliance Money, (Agent of Western Union), adjoining Hotel International, Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar through its authorized representative.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Chandan Deep Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.
Miss Neeraj Adv., counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.Sandeep Kalsi Adv., counsel for OP No.2.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that opposite parties are engaged in the business of money transfer, after taking their consideration/transfer fee, globally/through out the word. On account of some domestic need/financial crunch of complainant, family friend of complainant namely Parminder Kaur R/o 9972 Phoenicianj Way, Sctramento, CA, remitted 787 USD$ to the complainant, after paying the consideration of 13 USD$, through the channel/agent of the opposite party No.1 from USA. On 4.3.2014, the complainant went to opposite party No.2, stated the MTCN No., showed the ID proof and asked for the remittance of said 787 USD$. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite party No.2, informed the complainant that the money has already been remitted/given to the beneficiary. The complainant was dump founded on the said information as except him nobody was entitled to the said remittance/money and he had demanded the remittance from the opposite parties for the first time. The complainant tried his best to persuade the opposite parties that he has not received any money nor money can be released to anybody else except him but nothing could elicit positive response from the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled for the reimbursement of 787 USD$ sent by Parminder Kaur, having value of Rs.48,800/- approximately, on 4.3.2014, alongwith interest @18%.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that right at the outset it is submitted that Western Union Services India Pvt Ltd., does not provide any money transfer services in India. It provides consulting and business ancillary services to domestic and foreign companies including Western Union Financial Services Inc., USA (WUFSI). WUFSI has been licensed by Reserve Bank of India to provide the Western Union branded 'Money Transfer Services' through its agents in India. The Western Union branded Money Transfer Services is provided to the beneficiaries in India by the agent's own location or through its sub agent locations. Reliance Money Express Limited is one of the retail agents of Western Union in India which is licensed by RBI to provide those services to the beneficiaries in India. The opposite party No.2 is one of the agents of Western Union in India. In order to transfer money, the sender must duly fill in the To Send Form and sign on the same after a thorough perusal of the terms and conditions. Thereafter a money transfer control number (MTCN) pertaining to the transaction is generated. The MTCN is an important piece of information that the sender's intended recipient must provide in order to receive the money sent to him or her. The MTCN should not be provided to anyone other than the sender's intended recipient. Accordingly, the warning on the To Send Money Form states “Please do not share this number with anyone other than the recipient” and the like, so that the sender can closely guard and control this number. The Western Union Money Transfer Services are provided on the basis that the MTCN is only shared by the sender with his or her intended recipient. The money is given to the receiver only when the MTCN is provided to the Western Union location by the receiver and thereafter identifies himself at Western Union location. MTCN is a mandatory pay-out requirement to be given by the receiver at the time of receiving money. Thus money can be paid out to the beneficiary once all the pay-out requirements are met. It is significant to state here that MTCN is akin to pin number of an ATM card, thus is a highly confidential number and thus must only be shared between the sender and receiver of the money, and not with any third party. Thus at the time of receiving money, the receiver must duly fill in the To Receive Form, and identify himself/herself to the pay-out location by showing his government issued identity card alongwith an identity and address proof. The receiver must also in the said form disclose the name of the sender, the location from which the money is being transferred, relation with the sender and most importantly the MTCN. After duly verifying these details, the money is released to the receiver. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.48,800/- (787 USD$) was in fact transferred from USA to India and the same was received by Narinder Gupta at the Reliance Money, adjoining Hotel International, Jalandhar. Further, it would be pertinent to mention that the complainant received the above mentioned amount on 3.3.2014, for which a confirmation was also received by the sender of the money. Moreover, the sender on inquiry also received a letter from Western Union dated 12.3.2014, which clearly stated the details of the transaction that took place on 3.3.2014. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In its separate written reply opposite party No.2 pleaded that the company amongst others is one of the principal agents of Western Union Financial Services Inc, USA (Western Union) and duly authorized under the Western Union Representation agreement and also by the Reserve Bank of India under the India Money Transfer Service Scheme for providing money transfer service in India on behalf of Western Union. The agents/sub-agents of Western Union in India checks the authenticity of MTCN in the Western Union software and on being satisfied about the authenticity of the MTCN as to whether it belongs to the principal agent or not and thereafter to verify the KYC documents provided by the receiver, it disburses the payment to the receiver. Complainant on 4.3.2014 approached one of the sub-agents, i.e M/s Paramjit Singh & Company, inside Saidan Gate, Jalandhar alongwith MTCN number provided by the sender and asked for reimbursement of the amount corresponding to the MTCN number. M/s Paramjit Singh and Company checked the authenticity of the MTCN number provided by the complainant in the Western Union software and found that the MTCN had already been paid. It is pertinent to mention here that the software only shows the code of the branch/sub-agent. When M/s Paramjit Singh & Company checked the authenticity of the MTCN number provided by the complainant in the Western Union software the same was shown to be marked at code (AII620064), which does not belong to any of the branch/sub-agents of Reliance Money Express Limited. In the instant case the Western Union showed the MTCN being paid and the same was informed to the complainant and the same was also informed to the opposite party No.1 vide mail dated 4.3.2014, upon which the opposite party No.1 vide revert mail dated 4.3.2014 told to inform customer to call the customer care services of the opposite party No.1. Since the MTCN had already been paid by some other principal agents of Western Union and the Reliance Money Express Limited had in no manner provided services to the complainant, as such there being no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No.2 w.r.t to the transaction complained in terms of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith documents Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The opposite party No.2 is admittedly an agent of opposite party No.1. The liability of principal and that of an agent is co-extensive. The main dispute between the parties, is whether the complainant has received the amount in question sent to him by his friend Parminder Kaur from abroad? The amount involved is 787 US Dollars equvilant to Rs.48,800/-. According to the complainant on 4.3.2014 when he went to opposite party No.2 and disclosed MTCN number and showed ID proof and asked for remittance of said 787 US Dollars, he was surprised when opposite party No.2 informed him that the money has already been given to the beneficiary. The complainant is contending that he has not received the amount in question from any agent of opposite party No.1. On the other hand, according to opposite party No.2, the complainant has received the amount from another some agent i.e Paramjit Singh & Company, inside Saidan Gate, Jalandhar. Opposite party No.2 has placed on record mandatory guidelines prescribed by Western Union i.e opposite party No.1 regarding disbursing the amount. It, inter-alia, provide as under:-
“SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
DO's and DON'Ts:-
Always sight original id and validate the beneficiary before making payment
Always closely examine identification presented and ask for a 2nd form of ID if the Primary ID presented looks suspicious
Ensure a copy of the ID document and address proof is collected for every transaction
Ensure copies collected for reach transaction is self-attested by the beneficiary at the time of transaction.
Probe consumers on the relationship with the sender. Ensure additional due diligence is conducted if there exists no apparent relationships between sender and receiver.
Question the recipient if address not in vicinity of the paying location.
Record any additional information collected from the beneficiary on the “To Receive Money(TRM)” form so that this is available on record.
DO NOT MAKE PAYMENT if
1. You suspect the transaction is fraudulent.
2. Original identification documents are not provided for validation.
3. The transaction does not appear to be for personal/family maintenance.
ALWAYS LOOK OUT FOR FOLLOWING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY/BEHAVIOUR:-
Payees do not provide their original photo identification document for validation.
Transactions conducted by a group of individuals.
Payees frequently receive transfers from multiple senders.
Payees receive money using different KYC ids documents.
Payees appear nervous or anxious.
Submitted Ids have expired and/or look altered or modified.
Payees who reside at addresses not in the vicinity of the paying locations.
Most importantly where there is no apparent relationship between sender and receiver (for example senders who have western names and payees who have Indian/Anglo-Indian names).
Notify your agent's regional office/call center immediately on suspicion of fraud”.
8. The complainant moved an application for production of documents and in pursuance to the same, the opposite party No.2 produced form of driving license taken from the complainant as his ID proof. Form of driving license by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a valid ID proof. According to the own guidelines provided by opposite party No.1, at the time of disbursement of amount, the agent or sub-agents is required to probe consumers on relationship with the sender and to ensure additional due diligence if there exists no apparent relationships between sender and receiver. In the present case the amount was sent by friend of the complainant and there existed no relationship between them. So opposite parties were supposed to exercise due diligence while giving the amount. Further guidelines provides that question the recipient if address not in vicinity of the paying location. According to the own version of opposite party No.2 the amount was disbursed at Jalandhar and whereas on the form of driving license which was taken as ID proof, there is stamp of Licensing Authority, UNNO (UP). So the person receiving the payment was also not in vicinity of the paying location as per form of driving license. Further as per guidelines of opposite party No.1, the agent or sub-agents disbursing the amount is required to look our for the suspicious activity/behaviour if submitted ID has expired and/or look altered or modified and further payees who reside at address not in the vicinity of the paying location. Both these guidelines were not followed. No proper ID proof was taken. There was no apparent relationships between the sender and the complainant. As per form of driving license, the recipient was also not residing in the vicinity of the paying location. So it can not be said that opposite parties or any another agent of opposite party No.1 exercised due diligence while disbursing the amount. It is not understandable as to why the agent disbursing the amount accepted form of driving license as ID proof. The complainant has placed on record copy of voter ID card Ex.C4 and copy of Adhaar Card Ex.C5 and as per these documents he is resident of Dilbagh Nagar, Jalandhar City. So opposite parties have failed to lead any reliable evidence to show that the amount has actually been remitted to the complainant. So version of the complainant that he has not received the amount is liable to be accepted
9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.48,800/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above entire awarded amount after expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
26.10.2015 Member Member President
