The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of the complainant as well as from the evidence is that the petitioner (complainant) opened a saving bank account bearing No. 131020108116 in the year 1999 with the OP No.1 i.e. Malda District Central Co- Operative Bank, Malda Branch.
She opened the said before the joining to the service as a school teacher (mistress) in the year 2008, at Debinagar Girls High School, Raiganj, District Uttar Dinajpur. She converted the said account to salary account with regard to her service. After serving as a school mistress at Raiganj she was transferred to Nivedita Girls High School, Malda.
The salary of the complainant was operated through the said account for which she become a bonafide consumer of the bank i.e. OP No.-1.
It has been averred in the petition of complainant that she had a good relation with the bank i.e. OP No.-1.
Due to residential requirement, the complainant purchased a flat within the area of Tallyganj, Calcutta after taking financial assistance from State Bank of India, Rathbari Branch, Malda and amount of E.M.I. has to be transferred by way of “NEFT” from the account of the Co-Operative Bank to the State Bank of India, Rathbari Branch, Malda from the account of the petitioner (complainant)lying at Co-Operative Bank that is OP No.-1.
The EMI for the month of March, 2020 was transferred by NEFT on the 3rd march, 2020 after filing up the voucher of NEFT.
The complainant maintained all the formalities but the Opposite party No.-1 disclosed that it was mistakenly written the Account No. 34090906469 instead of No. 34090946469. But the IFSCnumber and other queries were rightly mentioned and written in the voucher of NEFT.
The counter part of NEFT receipt was correctly written but OP No.1 disclosed that in the official part of NEFT was mistakenly written. In the counter part of the receipt the receiving employee put his initial signature and stamp of the Bank.
In the month of April the SBI, Rathbari Branch intimated the complainant that the EMI for the month of March, 2020 has not been paid. On getting such news the complainant become perplexed and came to the bank i.e. OP-1 and on 3rd day of April she came to know that the amount was transmitted to another bank account of a different person. This is completely laches on the part of the Bank and there is gross insufficiency of the service on the part of OP-1 i.e. Malda District Central Co-Operative Bank, Malda Branch.
Thereafter the complainant filed several applications before the bank authorities, but there was no fruit full result for which she has filed the instant case for seeking her remedy/ remedies.
The OP-1&2 contested the case by filing written version (W.V.) denying all the material allegation as levelled against the OP- 1&2 contending interalia that the instant case is not maintainable, the case is barred by law limitation, the case is barred the principle of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
The definite defence case of OP No.1&2 is that the counter part of the receipt was correctly written the account number but the official part of the receipt was written mistakenly which was disclosed by the Opposite party No.-1 and the employee of OP No.-1 put signature along with seal of the bank and date on the counter part of the receipt which is meant for the party (i.e. complainant).
There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP- 1&2. The further defence case of OP No. 1 & 2 is that the complainant has chosen the wrong forum without taking the help of banking ombudsman scheme, 2006.
Considering such fact the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost against the OP No.-1 & 2.
The OP No.-3 has contested the case separately by filling written version (W.V.) denying the entire material allegation against the OP No.-3 contending interalia that the instant is not maintainable against this OP (i.e. OP No.-3) the instant case is barred by law of limitation, the case is bad for misjoinder of party.
The definite defence case of OP No.-3 is that the amount was not credited to S.B.I., Rathbari Branch and the amount was sent to another place in the mane of another person as such this OP has no liability and there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.-3. At such the instant is required to be dismissed against this OP (i.e. OP No.-3).
During trial the complainant has proved and marked the document exhibits from 1 to 6 as per list.
During trail the OPs did not prove and marked documents as exhibit/ exhibits.
During trial the complainant was examined and cross examined in the form of questionnaires, where the OP-1 and OP-3 were examined on behalf OP/OPs and cross examined in the form of questionnaires.
Now for the point for determination:- whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.
In order to dissolve the case the following issues are to be framed.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of OP/OPs?
- Whether the complainant has chosen the wrong form to redress her remedy?
:: Decision with reason ::
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and repetition of fact.
From the petition of complainant and evidence it is found that the complainant opened a bank account with the OP No.1 and took loan from the State Bank of India, Rathbari Barnch, Malda and the financial transaction is found between the Bank and complainant. So definitely under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant became a consumer of OP/OPs. From the document which has been marked exhibits it is found she is an account holder. So there is no doubt, the complainant is a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Next vital point is to be considered:-Whether is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
From the exhibit -3 (which is the counter part of the NEFT receipt) it is revealed that the complainant Keya Das deposited Rs. 20,007/- (twenty thousand seven) on 03/03/2020 in which it is found that the Beneficiary Account Number is 34090946469, and beneficiary IFSC Code SBIN0008436 and the said receipt was signed by the OP No.-1 through his employee along with stamp of the bank and date.
Now the defence case of OP No.-1 and 2 is that through mistake in the official part of the receipt the Account Number was written 34090906469 as such the account was credited to that account ie. A/C -34090906469.
It is not understood why the Bank employee of OP No.-2 received the amount when there is difference of Account Number in the counterpart and official part of NEFT receipt. The Bank i.e. OP No.-1 cannot escape its liability. It is not understood why the Bank did not produce the official part of NEFT receipt to show that Account number has been as 34090906469. Such non production of that receipt raises a strong presumption of the claim of OP No.-1 that Account number was written as 340909064669. It is a glaring negligence and deficiency of the service on the part of OP No.-1.
Another point is raised by the OP No.-1 and 2 that complainant has chosen the wrong form instead of moving to Banking ombudsman scheme, 2006 as well as Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
According to section 3 of consumer protection Act, 1986, this act is not in derogation of any other law. It is in addition to any law. So definitely the complainant has chosen the right Forum/ Commission to redress her remedy.
In the written argument filed by OPNo.-1 and 2 it has been stated that according RBI guidelines in a case of wrong transfer to an account only the remitter is responsible and liable. Neither the Bank nor any employee will be responsible. But such argument is not at all tenable as because the exhibit-3 i.e. counter part of the receipt was correctly written and the same has been accepted by the bank by affixing the rubber stamp, signature and date.
In the written argument filed by OP No.-3 it has been argued that in para 26 of affidavit-in-chief of complainant has stated that “not a fact I have no intentional latches in respect of subject matter of the complaint” by that point the Ld. Lawyer of the OP No.-3 wants to impress upon the forum that there was latches on the part of complainant.
But such argument as made by the OP No.-3 through its lawyer is not tenable in view of exhibit-3. The oral evidence cannot override documentary evidence i.e. exhibit-3 (counter part of NEFT receipt)
On perusal of record and evidence no liability is found against the OP No.3 i.e. State Bank of India, Rathbari Branch.
Hence it is ordered that,
the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.-1 and 2 with cost and dismissed against the OP No.-3 without any cost.
The complainant gets Rs.20,007/- (twenty thousand seven only) against the OP No.-1 and 2.
The complainant gets Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- total of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) as litigation cost and mental agony & harassment against the OP No.-1 and 2.
The OP No.-1 and 2 are directed to pay the amount as ordered within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order failing which it will carry an interest (simple) at the rate of @ 6%per annum from the date of filing till the realization the entire amount.
In the case of default of payment, the complainant will have the liberty to execute the order as per provision of law after lapse of forty five (45) days.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/ O.Ps free of cost on proper application.
