Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1463

BANK OF BARODA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRIJENDRA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MS.SARITA JAIN

13 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1463 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 31.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.43/2016 by District Commission, Rewa)

 

BRANCH MANAGER,

BANK OF BARODA,

KALA MANDIR ROAD BRANCH,

REWA (M.P.)                                                                                                    … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

1. BRIJENDRA SINGH,

    S/O SHRI MANIRAJ SINGH,

    PROPRIETOR SAKSHI SALES,

    BANSAGAR ROAD, REWA

    R/O 25/88, VIVEKANAND NAGAR,

    REWA (M.P.)

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    BRANCH-SIRMOUR CHOURAHA, REWA (M.P.)                                   …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Smt. Sarita Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 13.06.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant-Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

-2-

Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.43/2016, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) was allowed by the District Commission against the bank only.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant’s Indica car bearing registration no. MP-17 CA-1751 was insured with the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’). The said car met with an accident in April-2012 of which insurance claim was settled by the insurance company to the extent of Rs.14,462/- and transferred the same through RTGS in complainant’s bank account no.26510200000287 on 28.05.2013. It is alleged by the complainant that the said amount was not credited in his account with the bank. Despite approaching the bank, repeatedly the said amount was not credited in his account with the bank. For a long time both the opposite parties blamed on each other.  Thereafter, on 14.11.2014 he gave a legal notice to the opposite parties but no action was taken.  The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties approached the District Commission seeking an amount of Rs.14,462/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

3.                The opposite party no.1-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission has submitted that the amount of Rs.14,462/- was

-3-

transferred through NEFT in account no. 26570200000287 of M/S Sakshi Sales Proprietor Brijendra Singh. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the insurance company. If the opposite party no.2-bank has not paid the amount to him, the insurance company is not liable for the same. The complaint deserves to be dismissed as baseless.

4.                The bank in its reply to the complaint before the District Commission admitted that there is an account of the complainant but submitted that since no amount was transferred by the insurance company in his account then there is no question of making payment by the bank. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission allowed the complaint against the bank directed the bank to pay Rs.14,462/- within a period of 15 days with savings bank rate interest from 28.05.2013 till payment.  Cost of Rs.1,000/- is also directed to be paid. The District Commission dismissed the complaint against the insurance company.

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for appellant-bank argued that the District Commission without considering the fact that the insurance company never transferred any amount in the complainant’s account then how the bank can be held liable for payment of the said amount of Rs.14,462/- to the complainant.  In fact, as per record produced by the insurance company the

-4-

insurance company transferred the amount in account no. 26570200000287 whereas the complainant’s account number is 26510200000287 as stated by him in his complaint also. Since the amount was not transferred in the complainant’s account no. 26510200000287, therefore no amount was paid to the complainant. As per report given by the insurance company showing that the account no. 26570200000287 in which they have transferred the amount is not in the name of Sakshi Sales, Proprietor Brijendra Singh but of Durga Oil Store, in Bank of Baroda, Branch-Bikaner. The District Commission not considered the report filed by the insurance company in its correct way. She therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

8.                Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that the insurance company has transferred the amount in the complainant’s account as given by the complainant, therefore, the District Commission has rightly directed the bank to pay the amount to the complainant.  

9.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record we find that the complainant in his complaint has stated that his account no. is 26510200000287, whereas from the D-1 & D-2, the stand of the insurance company is that they have transferred the amount of Rs.14,462/- complainant’s account no. 26570200000287. Both the account numbers are different. It seems that the insurance company has wrongly

-5-

transferred the amount of Rs.14,462/- in account no. 26570200000287 instead of account no. 26510200000287, which is evident from their letter dated 03.09.2014 (D-3) addressed to the branch manager of the bank that we have transferred the amount but has wrongly mentioned the account no. 26570200000287 instead of 26510200000287. We find that the insurance company cannot be allowed to sail on two boats at one time. At one point of time they are stating that they transferred the amount in account no. 26570200000287 on the other hand they are submitting that they wrongly mentioned the account no. 26570200000287 instead of 26510200000287.

10.              As per insurance company’s statement that they had transferred the amount in the complainant’s account no. 26570200000287 directly either through NEFT or RTGS for that the bank cannot be held liable, if the insurance company transferred the amount in wrong account no. 26570200000287 instead of complainant’s account no. 26510200000287. The insurance company has not filed any document showing that the complainant had given him account no. 26570200000287 to substantiate their stand.  Similarly, the complainant though in his complaint has mentioned his account number as 26510200000287 but has not filed any documentary evidence such as copy of passbook. The complainant has also not denied that the account number 26570200000287 in which the insurance company has transferred the amount is not his account no.

-6-

11.              The bank is working as per guidelines of RBI and it cannot be expected from the bank to debit an amount from one account and credit the same in another account on its own. In such circumstances, we find that the bank cannot be held liable for the guilty of deficiency in service on part of the insurance company and the bank cannot be directed to pay the amount which has not been received in the complainant’s account.

12.              We find that the District Commission erred in relying on the version of the insurance company that the insurance company had already transferred the amount of Rs.14,462/- in complainant’s account but the bank did not pay the said amount to the complainant and while doing so the bank has committed deficiency in service and allowing the complaint.

13.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. The complainant is at liberty to recover the amount with interest from the insurance company. The insurance company is also at liberty to recover the amount from the wrong account holder before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.                                             

14.              In the result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. 

 

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Presiding Member                             Member