- Satyendra Trehan,
- Ms. Reeta Trehan,
South City Tower 2, Flat 28 L,
375 Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-68. _________ Complainants
____Versus____
- Yes Bank Ltd.
19, Camac Street,
Calcutta-17, P.s. Park Street.
- ICICI Bank Ltd.
140/1, Prince Anwar Shah Road,
Kolkata-45.
- Reserve Bank of India,
N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 28-01-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that sometime in Dec 2011 complainants wereapproached by o.p. no.1 and was requested to open an account with o.p. no.1 as it was giving 7% interest in the savings bank. Complainants being lured with the higher returns agreed to open a savings account with o.p. no.1 and as such, a saving bank account with o.p. no.1 having S.B. A/C No.001790700003184 was opened.
Complainants also had a joint savings account with o.p. no.2 along with having S.B. A/C No.054001503236 since Oct. 2010. On 9.1.12 one employee of o.p. no.1 Mr. Arnab Bose visited the residence of complainant to give a demonstration on how to use the net banking services as well as to activate the same. In the process the said employee asked the complainant to provide the data for transferring an amount to another account to activate and confirm the functioning of net-banking.
Complainants as per the instruction of the said employee asked him to transfer an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from their savings bank account with o.p. no.1 to savings bank account with o.p. no.2. Complainants also provided the said employee with the following three data for the transfer of Rs.1,10,000/- from the savings account no.001790700003184 maintained with o.p. no.1 to the savings bank account no.054001503236 maintained with o.p. no.2.
Complainant wanted to very whether the said amount has been transferred to his S.B. A/C with o.p. no.2 the complainants were surprised to know that the same has not been transferred.
However, on enquiry curiously enough complainants came to know that the aforesaid amount was transferred to the wrong account number of another person Mr. S. Dhiman. It is pertinent to mention that as per the clause 6.20 (a) of h e Special Electronic Funds Transfer System: Procedural Guidelines issued by the Reserve
Bank of India, before the transfer of the aforesaid huge amount it was the duty of o.p. no.1 to tally with the branch code and the name of the beneficiary. In this case both the branch code and the name of beneficiary differed as a result o.p. no.2 ought to have held up the said transfer and verified with the correct account details and ought to have kept the funds in a suspense account. O.p. no.2 acted negligently manifesting gross deficiency in rendering the banking service to the complainants.
Complainants exchanged several mains with the o.ps. but in spite of all efforts none of the o.ps. bother to refund the said amount.
It is stated that electronic fund transfer is mandated through the clearing house managed by o.p. no.3. It is stated that o.p. no.3 ought to have a system to prevent funds being transferred to wrong recipients. The failure to provide a system whereby the funds are transferred to wrong person is an absolute deficiency in service.
It is further stated that the complainants being retired senior citizens have suffered severe mental agony for the loss of his money for the wrong on the part of the o.p. nos.1 and 2.
Both o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainants entered their necessary datas for transfer of amount in question and it is the responsibility of the account holder to enter the necessary data correctly for transferring the amount. It is further seen from the record that complainants made before banking ombudsman where in complainants admitted that they had entered wrong account number while carrying out the said NEFT transaction. We further find that complainants sent a mail to o.p. no.2 on 23.1.12 to refund the erroneously corrected amount in the account number of complainants and o.p. wrote to that effect that the entire amount has been withdrawn by their customer and they are trying to recover the amount erroneously corrected and shall reverse the amount in the account of complainants if the account is recover.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record, we do not find any deficiency on the part of o.ps. and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.ps. without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
