Date of filing: 16.01.2017
Date of Disposal:23.11.2022
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.77/2017
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Shashank Mahanthesh,
Aged about 25 years,
‘Sukrutha’, No.45-A,
-
Gowrav Nagar, 7th Phase,
J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore-560 078.……COMPLAINANT
V/s
ICICI Bank Limited,
80 feet Road,
No.5, 7th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 095.…… OPPOSITE PARTY
Rep by Sri.S.Ramakrishnan, advocate.
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
The complainant party in person has filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.54,073/-.
2. It is not in dispute that in the year 2016 the complainant was holding an account No.004701599528 in ICICI Bank Limited, at Koramangala, Bengaluru in India and a bank account in USA in No.104783132194. Further, it is not in dispute that on that time the complainant was pursuing his master’s Degree in University of Minnesota, USA and was a NRI residing at Minnesota, USA and permanent resident and citizen of India. Further, it is not in dispute that for transfer of money from US bank to the account of complainant in ICICI in India, the complainant chose a service rendered by the ICICI Bank NRI services known as Money2India and on 25.05.2016 he had initiated a transfer of USD 5980.92 (equivalent to INR 4,00,000/- with an exchange rate of 1 USD=INR 66.94) with a tracking number M2A10985497 provided by the Money2India on the same day. Further, it is not in dispute that the said transfer was put on hold for the reason that “KYC not clear”. Further, it is not in dispute that the opposite party is a schedule bank under the RBI Act. Further, the facility of Money2India allows registered users to remit or send foreign currency (i.e., currency other than Indian Rupees) to India, instantly.
3. Further, it is not in dispute that the above said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been debited on 26.05.2016 from the account of the complainant at US Bank. Further, it is not in dispute that at the instance of opposite party, the complainant had raised an R07 repudiation request to get the funds back to his US bank account. Further, on 11.11.2016 INR 4,00,000/- got credited to the complainant’s ICICI Bank account without any kind of additional documents been submitted by the complainant.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that without any reason for a period of 5 months 16 days, the opposite party had withheld the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- without crediting the same to the account of the complainant. Further, the said amount was a very big amount to the complainant and because of the deficiency in service by the opposite party it has adversely impacted on the studies of the complainant to pay tuition fees and thereby put his whole studies and career in jeopardy. Hence, since from the beginning till the credit of the said amount to the account of the complainant in India had created immense mental tension and pressure on the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint came to be filed claiming interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the withheld amount for a period of 5 months 16 days and compensation towards mental agony and other expenses incurred by the complainant.
5. It is the further case of the opposite party that since the complainant has failed to implead bank of New York, Mellon as a party to the complaint, the complaint is not maintainable. Further, prior to any transaction being carried out, the KYC check must be completed by the bank. But the complainant without doing the same immediately got transferred the amount from US bank. Further, the time period for the KYC check was scheduled for T+1 day. Since, the complainant carried out the transfer prior to KYC check, the funds could not be credited to the account of the complainant in opposite party bank. Further, in a situation when the KYC check is found to be negative, the funds are transferred back to the originating account of the transaction, after a cooling period of 65 days. Further Lexis-Nexis a corporation based out of the US provides computer assisted legal research as well as business and risk management services. It maintains the database for the opposite party of the customers based in the US. They also maintain the social security number (SSN) details of the US based customers. Hence, based on the result of this check done by the opposite party on 26.05.2016 it was found that the account was moved to zero limit. Further, this indicates that those ‘customers’ account that has been categorized will not be carry-out any transaction.
6. Further, since the complainant had intimated the opposite party that the transaction has not been completed as the account has not been maintained by the opposite party in ICICI bank. The opposite party had requested the complainant to raise a R07 request with an intention to transfer the amount to US bank account of the complainant. Upon generating an R07, the amount transferred must be returned to the customer in not later than 60 days from the date of settlement and the customer would have to sign an affidavit. Further, the complainant had informed the opposite party through email on 22.06.2016 that the US bank was unable to raise an R07, the opposite party recommended the complainant to raise an R10 as an exception. Further, when an R10 is raised, the funds must be returned to the Customer in no more than 60 days from settlement date of original entry and the customer must sign an affidavit. Even in spite of that the opposite party did not receive any request or debit had been received by the opposite party and the same had been intimated to the complainant. Further, the opposite party’s correspondent bank, i.e., bank of New York, Mellon, informed the opposite party that they had received an R10 request vide email dt.19.08.2016 from the complainant’s bank i.e., US Bank. The opposite party informed their correspondent New York Bank to immediately authorise the R10 request and debit the opposite party’s accounts and the same was communicated to the correspondent New York Bank. Further, even though the opposite party has repeatedly attempted to contact the complainant’s US Bank with regard to the R10 request, the same was in vain and no response from the US Bank with regard to any action taken. Further, the opposite party had carry-out re-verification of KYC documents on 24.10.2016 and the complainants KYC documents had been verified successfully and since there was no action taken by the US Bank to revoke the transaction, the opposite party requested the complainant to revoke the R10 request, in order to enable the transfer of the aforementioned amount to the beneficiary. Upon the confirmation of the revoke request by the complainant on 09.11.2016, the opposite party on 11.11.2016 had processed the transaction and credited the amount to the account of the complainant.
7. Further, without carry-out KYC check by the opposite party, the complainant got transferred the funds from US bank and the complainant intentionally failed to say that US bank was unable to raise on R07 request. Further, on receiving the R10 request by the opposite party, the opposite party immediately authorized their account to be debited and even though the same was done in the month of August-2016. In spite of repeatedly contacting the US Bank, no action has been taken by them. Finally, in the month of November 2016, subsequent to the KYC re-check being in the positive, the opposite party proactively contacted the complainant and suggested that the R10 request may be revoked so as to enable the opposite party to transfer the funds to the beneficiary. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party had continuously followed the transaction.
8. To prove the case, the GPA Holder of the complainant has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and had produced documents. The Manager-Legal of opposite party-bank has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and had produced documents.
9. Counsels for both the parties have filed written arguments.
10. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the
compensation as sought ?
iii) What order ?
11. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In affirmative
Point No.2 : Partly in affirmative
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
12.POINT NO.1:- The GPA holder of the complainant and Manager-legal of opposite party have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that since bank of New York, Mellon has not been made as a party, the complaint is not maintainable and the said bank is a necessary party to dispose-off the issue in between the parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the transaction was in between the complainant’s US bank with the opposite party-bank. Further, there is no allegation by the complainant against the bank of New York, Mellon. Therefore, we feel there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and nothing is brought to the notice of this commission with regard to the vital contribution of the said bank in the transaction. Hence, there is no merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party.
13. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant has on his own initiated the transfer of funds without completion of the KYC procedure on the money2india website. The KYC is a mandatory procedure to be followed to transfer funds especially in case of an NRI Account. Further, in case of the KYC check being negative the funds are transferred to the original account within 65 days of the initiation of the transfer. If such being the fact it is not forth coming as to why the opposite party did not revert the amount of the complainant to US bank account after 65 days. Further, admittedly without any further documents been produced from the side of the complainant on 11.11.2016, the opposite party bank had credited Rs.4,00,000/- to the account of the complainant in opposite party bank. Hence, with regard to the KYC updation the compliance from the side of the complainant was not required in the case on hand. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the KYC of the complainant has not been updated the amount could not be transferred to the required account of the complainant maintained in the opposite party-bank.
14. Further, on the request of the opposite party, the complainant had raised an R07 repudiation request to get the funds back to his US bank account and the complainant had sent the same to the said bank and the complainant had received an email stating that since the money was with ICICI bank the transfer of amount cannot be stopped and it was the responsibility of the ICICI bank to return the funds. Further, the complainant on contacting the customer care, it was informed to furnish Social Security Number (SSN) and the complainant had emailed the scanned copy of SSN to NRI on ICICI bank.com.
15. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that on 22.06.2016 the complainant had informed the opposite party that US bank was unable to initiate the R07 request, hence, it was suggested by the opposite party i.e., to raise R10 as an exception. Even then the US bank and the complainant at no point of time took proper measures to initiate the refund process. We feel, once the amount has been debited from the complainant’s account at US bank the question of sending the request by raising R07 and R10 to the US bank does not arise. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that as per the annexure-K filed along with the version, it appears that R10 has not been rejected. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the opposite party bank had suggested the complainant to revoke R10 request to initiate the transfer of funds and the same was carried-out by the complainant on 09.11.2016 and thereafter the opposite party bank had refunded on 11.11.2016. Further, the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant stood at ICICI Bank in India.
16. We feel since the opposite party bank has credited Rs.4,00,000/- to the account of the complainant at ICICI Bank in India on 11.11.2016 without any document been produced by the complainant, even though the account of the complainant with US bank has been debited on 25.05.2016 i.e., after lapse of 5 months 16 days. The reason with regard to the delay shown by the opposite party is not a satisfactory one. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, we answer this point in affirmative.
17. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 5½ months. Since, the opposite party did not credit the said amount immediately to his account ICICI bank, we feel the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 7% p.a. for the said period and it comes to Rs.12,833/-. Further, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards mental stress. We feel the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
18.POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;
-
The complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,833/- towards interest to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.22,833/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 23rd day of November, 2022)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
Witness examined for the complainants side:
Mrs.J.E.Sulochana, the GPA Holder of the complainant has filed her affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainant side:
1. Copy of power attorney holder of the complainant.
2. Copy of Email dt.24.05.2016,.
3. Copy of Uni-statement dt.13.05.2016 and 13.06.2016.
4. Copy of email dt.27.05.2016, 06.03.2016, 21.06.2016, 26.07.2016, 03.08.2016, 09.08.2016, 10.08.2016, 02.10.2016, 05.10.2016, 06.10.2016, 18.10.2016, 13.10.2016, 09.11.2016 and 10.11.2016.
5. Copy of account details issued by ICICI Bank.
6. Certificate of State of Minnesota.
7. Copy of the transaction details and transaction status obtained by logging into the complainant’s Money2India website.
8. Copy of the email sent to 9. Copy of the complainant’s US bank statement indicating the debit of the said amount of 5980.92 USD on 26.05.2016.
10. Copy of the email received from the opposite party’s email address 11. Copy of the letter provided by the complainant’s US Bank representative regarding the status of the raised repudiation request.
12. Copy of the email by the opposite party to the complainant on 09.11.2016 instructing withdraw the repudiation request.
13. Copy of the email by the complainant to the opposite party to on 10.11.2016 informing about the withdrawal of the repudiation request.
14. Copy of the complainant’s ICICI bank statement indicating the credit of the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 11.11.2016.
15. Copy of the complaint to the opposite party on 03.01.2017 to pay the appropriate interest towards the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
16. Copy of the acknowledgment by the opposite party on 05.01.2017 to the complaint raised by the complainant.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri.Kartikeya Panwar, Manager-Legal of opposite party has filed affidavit.
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
1. Copy of the track transfers document issued by the ICICI Bank dt.13.01.2017.
2. Copy of email dt.27.05.2016.
3. Copy of Uni-statement issued by US Bank dt.13.05.2016.
4. Copy of email dt.31.05.2016.
5. Copy of letter issued by US bank dt.10.12.2016.
6. Copy of email dt.09.11.2016, 10.11.2016.
7. Copy of account details issued by ICICI Bank.
8. Copy of email dt.03.01.2017, 05.01.2017.
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
