Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/14/2019

Harjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal Adv. & Sarbjit Kaur Adv.

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	14 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	09.01.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	15.12.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Harjeet Kaur w/o Ranjit Singh, R/o House No.35, Phase-2, HM Quarter Part-1, Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  ICICI Bank, SCO No.485-486, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Directors.

 

2]  Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Address Ajadi Kalan, Teshil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan 333001, through its Managing Director/Directors.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.S.K.SARDANA       MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.Abhilash Bhattacharya, Adv. proxy for   Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Adv. for complainant.

 

  Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.1.

  OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant having an account bearing NO.632201538114 with OP No.1 bank, transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her said account to her relative’s account NO.4426010000373 of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 10.2.2017 via NEFT (Ann.C-10).  However, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- though debited from the account of complainant (Ann.c-2), did not credit in the account of her relative in OP No.2 Bank, which has also been certified by OP No.2 Bank vide  letter Ann.C-3.  It is stated that the complainant requested OP No.1 a number to times to credit the said amount in OP No.2 Bank but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been preferred.

 

2]       The OP No.1 – ICICI Bank has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the transaction in question was a internet/mobile banking transaction which was done by the complainant herself.  It is stated that the amount has been deducted and duly sent to the bank branch as mentioned in the IFSC code details provided & entered by the complainant and transaction was remitted successfully for said code. It is submitted that the amount has been transferred as per instructions to the IFSC code entered by the complainant and the OP is not in error in any manner and that the error, if any, was on the part of complainant by keying in the wrong IFSC code. It is submitted that the amount is already paid by the bank as per the instructions of the complainant and the OP Bank is not responsible for any error made by the complainant. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.3.2019.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by complainant controvering the assertions of the OP No.1 made in its reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused entire record including written arguments.

 

6]       It is undisputed that the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- from hers account with OP No.1 to her relative’s account in OP NO.2 Bank, which has not been credited to the said account nor reversed/refunded to her account till date.

 

7]       The OP No.1 though stated that the said transaction has been successful but failed to placed on record any concrete documentary evidence to establish that the said amount has been duly transferred to her relative account No.4426010000373 of OP NO.2 nor reversed/refunded to complainant.  Thus, the bald assertion of OP NO.1 to this effect cannot be considered.    Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 is proved, which certainly caused harassment, agony and loss to complainant and forced her to indulge into avoidable litigation.

 

8]        Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 is proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OP No.1 with direction to refund/reverse entire amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of transfer i.e. 10.2.2017 till its realiazation. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing harassment & agony due to its deficient services, along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief.

 

9]       The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.

 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th December, 2022                                                       Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER