| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB. C.C. No. 66 of 16.05.2014 Decided on: 20.02.2015 Harnek Singh aged about 50 years, son of Sh.Ajaib Singh, resident of village Ghullumajra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. …..Complainant Versus - Western Union Services India Pvt.Ltd., having its head office at Ground Floor, Fortune 2000 Building, Unit No.G101, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 through its Managing Director.
- Western Union, having its Branch Office at Amloh, Sukhbir Medical Hall, Nabha Road, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
…..Opposite Parties Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Quorum Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President. Smt. Veena Chahal, Member. Present : Sh.K.S.Bhagrana,Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Anish Bansal,Advocate for OP no.1. Sh.Naveen Behl,Advocate, for OP no.2 ORDER By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.Complainant Harnek Singh, resident of Village Ghullumajra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 11,12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- - On 25.3.2014, Sh.Bhawandeep Singh son of the complainant, settled at England had sent 120 United Kingdom Pounds worth Rs.1,21,608/- by way of Western Union Money Transfer in the name of the complainant i.e. Harnek Singh as receiver through his friend Sukhvaj Singh, for purchasing the straw reaper. The M.T.C.N number of the transaction is 970-169-9280.On 26.3.2014, the complainant visited the office of OP no.2 to withdraw/collect the said amount. The OP no.1 told the complainant that the server is not working properly and thus OP no.2 is unable to pay the amount and told the complainant to visit on the next day. On 27.3.2014 the complainant visited OP no.2 for withdrawing /collecting the amount but was shocked to know that the amount had already been withdrawn on 26.3.2014 by someone else. The complainant enquired the matter from OP no.2 but no satisfactory answer was given by OP no.2 and told that the head office can only inform regarding the withdrawal. It is stated that in routine practice if , amount is more than Rs.50,000/-then Western Union allows to issue a cheque in the name of the receiver. The OPs had not given any information in whose favour they issued the cheque.
- The complainant approached OP no.1 personally and also registered complaint No.1444386 dated 28.3.2014 telephonically but the concerned employee of OP no.1 put the matter off on one or the other pretext. No payment has been paid by the OPs till today. The complainant also got sent a legal notice dated 28.4.2014 to the OPs through his counsel Sh.K.P.S.Bhagrana, Advocate. The OPs neither made the payment nor had given the reply to the notice. The complainant was also forced to take on rent the straw reaper @ Rs.850/- per trolley. Thus there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,21,608.89 with interest @24% per annum, sent to him by his son, Rs.21,250/- paid as rent of straw reaper, Rs.70,000/- as compensation for harassment, Rs.1,50,000/- as financial loss and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
- On notice the OPs appeared and filed their separate written version.
- In the written version filed by OP no.1 the OP has taken preliminary objections interalia that Western Union Service India Pvt. Ltd. “Western Union” does not provide any money transfer services in India. It is stated that the OP no.1 provides consulting and business ancillary services to domestic and foreign companies including Western Union Financial Services Inc., USA ( here and after referred as 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 locations or through its Sub Agent locations. India Post is one among the other agents of Western Union in India which is licensed by RBI to provide those services to the beneficiaries in India. The OP no.2 is a Sub-agent of one of the agents of Western Union in India. It is stated that in order to transfer the money, the sender must duly fill in the To Send Form and sign on the same and thereafter Money Transfer Control Number (MTCN) pertaining to the transaction is generated. The MTCN is an important piece of information that a sender’s intended recipient must provide in order to receive the money. Accordingly, the warning on the To Send Money form states, “ Please do not share this number with anyone other than the recipient”. The money is given to the receiver only when the MTCN is provided to the Western Union location. It is stated that 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 proof. The receiver must also in the said form disclose the name of the sender, the location from where the money was being transferred, relation with the sender and most importantly the MTCN and after duly verifying these details, the money is released to the receiver. On merits it is admitted that on 25.3.2014 money was transferred to the complainant by one Mr.Sukhvaj Singh .It is also submitted that an amount of Rs.1,21,608/- was transferred from England to India and the same was received by Mr.Harnek Singh at the Indian Post, Kolkata, branch of the agent of OP no.1 and as the sum of money transferred was greater than Rs.50,000/- the same was credited to the account of the complainant at the India Post. Mr.Harnek Singh filled in the To Receive Form and submitted all the confidential sender’s data(the sender’s name, location, amount sent etc.) alongwith the MTCN at the Kolkata Branch and was indentified having submitted his PAN card and Aadhar card thereafter the money was released to the complainant. The amount was credited in the account of the complainant bearing No.365808. It is stated that the account was opened by the complainant with the India Post, Kolkata Branch on 26.3.2014 and the money was transferred on 27.3.2014. It is stated that payment was credited to the savings bank account of Harnek Singh held with India Post and the same was withdrawn by Mr.Harnek Singh on the next date and OP no.1 is not liable as the money was given after due verification and on receipt of the MTCN. OP .It is stated that OP is also not responsible if the MTCN is shared with somebody other than the actual receiver or if any third party besides the sender.There was no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In the written version filed by OP no.2 the OP has taken preliminary objections interalia that the complainant is not the consumer of OP no.2, the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits the OP no.2 denied all the averments made in the complaint and has prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, affidavit of Harmesh Singh, Ex.C2, copy of Wupos receipt,Ex.C3,copy of legal notice,Ex.C4,copy of postal receipt,Ex.C5, copy of ration card,Ex.C6, copy of driving licence,Ex.C7 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the OP No.1 its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP1/1 copy of resolution, Ex.OP1/2 copy of payout procedure and streamlined payout policy, Ex.OP1/3 copy of western union Gold card number with terms and conditions, Ex.OP1/4 copy of terms and conditions,Ex.OP1/4 copy of ledger,Ex.OP1/5copy of identity proofs and To Receive Money Form,Ex.OP1/6 copy of best practice guide, Ex.OP1/7 copies of reply dated 2.4.2014 and 21.5.2014, Ex.OP1/8 affidavit of Sh.Parimal, Legal Assistant and closed the evidence. Likewise OP no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.R1/2 affidavit of Sh.Harpreet Singh, Ex.R2/2 copy of commission statement and closed the evidence.
- Both the ld. Counsels for OPs has emphasized that their preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum be decided first, before going into the merits of the case.
9. The ld. Counsels pleaded that the present complaint has been filed with intention to extort unreasonable amount of money from OPs by act of fraud. The ld. Counsels stated that the money was withdrawn at Kolkata by Harnek Singh as the same is evident from copy of ledger i.e Ex.OP1/4,copy of Pan card i.e Ex.OP1/5 and To receive money form. The ld. Counsel pleaded that later on the complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum without any evidence. 10. The ld. Counsel for the complainant objected to the submissions of the OPs and submitted that rather fraud has been committed by the OPs with the complainant and the present complaint deserves to be decided on the merits of the complaint. 11. We have heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, we are of the opinion that in the present case After going through the pleadings and the evidence, it shows that a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary would be required for the complainant to prove its case and the dispute between the parties, even otherwise shows that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the pleadings of the parties and the same is not possible for this Forum to decide in its summary jurisdiction. We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) : 2002 (1) SCALE, in which Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion.Accordingly in view of our abovesaid discussion,we find that in the present case also complicated questions of law and facts are involved.Hence we dispose of the present complaint with direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. All the documents required by the complainant be returned. Parties to bear their own costs. 12. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 19.02 .2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Pronounced Dated :20.02.2015 (A.P.S.Rajput) President (Veena Chahal) Member | |
