HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

        This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28/01/2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 187/2012 where the Forum concerned dismissed the complaint case and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 28/01/2015, the present appeal has been preferred.

        The brief fact of the case is that, sometime in December, 2011 the complainants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) were approached by the OP no. 1/Yes Bank Ltd. to open an account with the said OP no. 1, as it was giving high rate of interest in savings bank account @ 7% per annum. The complainant being allured by the facility of high returns, agreed to open a savings bank account with the OP no. 1 and accordingly a savings bank account no. 001790700003184 was opened.

        The complainants had a joint savings account with OP no. 2  /ICICI Bank Ltd. having account no. 054001503263 since October, 2010. On 09/01/2012 one Mr. Arnab Bose, an employee of the OP no. 1/Yes Bank Ltd., visited the residence of the complainants to give a demonstration on how to use the net banking services and to activate the same. In the process the said employee asked the complainant to provide the data for transferring an amount to another account for showing activation and confirming the functioning of such net banking system. The complainants as per instruction of the said employee of the OP no. 1 asked the said employee Mr. Arnab Bose to transfer an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- from their savings bank account with the OP no. 1 to the savings bank account of OP no. 2 and the complainant also provided the said employee the data for transfer of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the savings bank account no. 001790700003184 maintained by the OP no. 1 to the savings bank account 054001503236 maintained by the OP no. 2. When the complainant wanted to verify the said amount transferred, whether it was properly done or not to his savings bank account with the OP no. 2, the complainants surprisingly came to know that the said amount transferred was not successfully done but it was transferred to a wrong account number of another person Mr. S. Dhiman. The complainant however claimed that as the clause 6.20(a) of the Electronic Funds Transfer System; Procedural Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, before the transfer of the huge amount, it was the duty of OP no. 1/Yes Bank Ltd. to tally with the branch code and the name of the beneficiary and in the instant case as both the branch code and the name of beneficiary differed from each other, the OP no. 2 ought to have held up the said transfer and should verify the correct account details, keeping the funds in a suspense account but the OP no. 2 acted negligently, manifesting gross deficiency in rendering the banking service to the complainants who requested the OPs for redress but all of their efforts went in vain. As per regulations of the electronic fund transfer, it is mandated that the OP no. 3/Reserve Bank of India ought to have a system to prevent the fund being transferred to wrong recipients but the failure to provide the system for preventing transfer to wrong person is a deficiency in service. The complainants being senior citizens have suffered mental agony for the loss of their hard earned money for the wrong done by the employees of the OPs no. 1 & 2.

        Both OPs no. 1 & 2 (i.e. the respondents no. 1 & 2 herein) appeared to contest the complaint case. The OP no. 1 in its written version admitted that this employee Mr. Arnab Bose visited the residence of the complaints on their request only as a service gesture.

        The materials on record reveal that the complainants are the old men/senior citizens and we are unable to accept that the representative of OP no. 1 went to their residence out of his own and beyond the course of his employment to collect money by motivating them to earn interest at a higher rate, i.e. @ 7% per annum. Since the representative of the OP no. 1 got the responsibility of transferring the amount from one bank account to another, belonging to the complainants herein, it was the responsibility of the said employee to perform his job efficiently without doing any mischief to the account holder, but it was not done so in the present case. The guidelines as provided by Reserve Bank of India clearly provide that the banks are generally expected to match the name and account number information of the beneficiary before affording credit to the account in cases where it is found that the credit has been afforded to a wrong account, banks need to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credits and set right the mistake and/or return the transaction to the originating bank. The matter was referred to the banking ombudsman for West Bengal having its office at 15 N. S. Road, Kolkata – 700 001 but to no effect as yet, as it is pointed out. When the OP no. 1/Yes Bank Ltd. sent its representative to the residence of the complainants for collecting money by way of alluring them by offering high rate of interest in the savings account, leading the complainants to do something being allured by the agent of the bank, the bank authorities cannot be absolved from their liability rather it would be responsible for doing the job by its agent. On the other hand, the complainant who placed reliance on the statement of the bank authority (Yes Bank herein) and have done something on good faith, they cannot be blamed for the loss caused even particularly when both the complainants were old / aged persons. Ld. Trial Forum in the impugned judgment failed to consider the proper aspect of the matter and wrongly placed the responsibility upon the account holders, we do not find any reason to concur with the views taken by the Ld. District Forum concerned. The nature of grievance against the banking authorities clearly revealed that the helpless customer of the bank fell in the trap of the bank authority and took the risk to have a demonstration of e-banking system at their residence. Since we hold that the OPs are vicariously liable for the mischief done by their agent by way of transferring the amount in a wrong name and not by withholding the same by another bank i.e. the OP no. 2  /ICICI Bank, both are liable for the mischief done to the complainants and they are liable to make good the loss, suffered by them. Hence, we differ from the findings of Ld. Forum concerned and we feel inclined to set aside the findings therein, in the impugned judgment and hold that the OPs no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to the account holders i.e. the complainants herein. The OP no. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of occurrence till its realisation in full to be paid within one month from the date of this order and a liberty to reimburse the same from the OP no. 2 on its recovery. The OP no. 1 shall also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants for their mental agony and another Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation cost and it shall also be paid within one month from the date of this order. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order of Ld. District Forum concerned are set aside. The OPs/Respondents no. 1 & 2 are directed to comply with the direction as indicated above, but the appeal stands dismissed against the OP no. 3/R.B.I. With the above observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. Parties do bear their respective costs of appeal.