BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.187 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 08.06.2022

      Date of Decision: 08.11.2024

Bhupindera Singh, Age 61 years, S/o Anand Mohan Singh, 7-B, Guru Ram Dass Colony, Street No.3, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab & Sind Bank, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar Through its        Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2.       Punjab & Sind Bank, Phuwara Chowk, Amritsar Through its Chief Manager/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. J. S. Sodhi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 withdrawn.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant requested the OP No.1 to transfer Rs.4,99,796.26 from his account to his son residing in Canada. The OP No.1 withdrawn Rs.4,99,796.26 on 04.05.2022 from complainant’s account No.03521000032846 and told the complainant that the said amount would be conveyed to his son in Canada within two days. The son of the compo who is residing in Canada was urgent need of money, informed the complainant that the above said amount has not reached him in Canada. On 10.05.2022, the complainant intimated the OP No.1 that the above said amount which was withdrawn from his account on 04.05.2022 has not been transferred to his son in Canada and further requested to look into the matter at the earliest. But no action was taken by the OP No.1. The son of the complainant was urgent need of money in Canada. Buyer the OP No.1 retained the said amount with them. Instead of transfer the said amount to his son in Canada, on 11.05.2022, the OP No.1 returned Rs.4,82,647/- to complainant’s account and intimated the complainant through SMS. An  amount Rs.4,99,796.26 was requested to transfer to Canada which amount was withdrawn by OP No.1 from complainant's account but the OP No.1 returned Rs.4,82,647/-. The OP No.1 deducted Rs.17149.26 baselessly without any reason and without providing required service. An application dated 16/05/22 was given to OP No.1 asking the deduction of said amount and requested to credit difference of amount access deducted to the account of complainant. But the OP No.1 neither reversed the said deducted amount nor given proper response. Despite so many requests and visits made by complainant to OP No.1, the OP No.1 has not reversed the said deducted amount (Rs.17,149-26) to the account of complainant which is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return Rs.17,149.26 to the complainant and Rs.80,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and concealed the real facts before the Commission. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the foreign banks and mis-joinder of OP No.2. It is further averred that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is false and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and is liable to be dismissed with special costs. The complaint is the abuse of the process of law. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP No.1. On merits, the factum with regard to withdrawal of Rs.4,99,796.26 from the account of the complainant is correct. It is also admitted that the complainant approached OP No.1 regarding non-crediting the amount to his son’s account, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                Complaint against OP No.2 was withdrawn by the complainant vide his separate statement dated 27.07.2022.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant approached the OP for transfer of Rs.4,99,796.26 from his account to his son Arshdeep Singh in Canada on 04.05.2022. On 10.05.2022, the complainant was informed that the son of the complainant did not receive the amount. On enquiry from the OP, the OP instead of sending the money to the complainant’s son returned the amount of Rs.4,82,647/- to the complainant’s account after deducting Rs.17,149.26. The complainant has alleged this as a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.                The contention of the OP is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs rather the fault is of the complainant. The complainant himself handed a hand written note to the OP No.1, wherein he had mentioned the detail of the bank and the account number. As per the hand written note, the payment was to be made through the intermediary bank i.e. Bank of America, but the swift code number was wrongly been mentioned by the complainant himself. The complainant was asked to recheck the details. It has been alleged by the OPs that they got the information that the bank account details did not match and bank of America returned the amount to Delhi Branch of OP No.1 after deducting the commission as applicable.

8.                The complainant has filed on record the statement of account of the complainant, from which account the amount of Rs.4,99,796.26 was withdrawn on 04.05.2022, and this fact is not disputed. Similarly, the amount of Rs.4,82,647/- was credited in the account of the complainant on 11.05.2022 and this fact is also not disputed. Ex.C-3 is the message received by the complainant regarding the withdrawal of the amount. The application has been moved by the complainant to the branch manager making request that the funds are not transferred to his son’s account. This letter was written on 10.05.2022 and again he wrote a letter to the OP making request to credit the difference of the amount excess deducted from his account. The contention of the OP is that the wrong bank accounts were mentioned by the complainant. They have relied upon the hand written letter and particulars given by the complainant Ex.R-1, which shows that the intermediary bank is Bank of America and Swift Code has rightly been mentioned in the hand written note. The Swift Code of TD Canada Bank has been mentioned in this letter. Ex.R-2 is the authority letter written by the OP. Ex.R-3 is declaration form. The account number in declaration form as well as the in hand written form Ex.R-1 and Ex.R3 is the same. Swift code of the bank of America has also been rightly given, which is the same in Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-3. Ex.R-4 is the transaction detail. The contention of the OP is the account number did not match as per the information received from the Bank of America by the Delhi Bank, but there is no letter by Bank of America on record to show that the amount was not transferred in the account of Arshdeep Singh because there was a difference of account number or Swift Code number or bank name. There is no letter on the record to prove that the amount of Rs.17,149.26 was deducted by the Bank of America while returning the amount nor any such information was given by the OP to the complainant nor any inquiry was made by the OP from the complainant. Without informing the complainant, the amount of Rs.17,149.26 was deducted as commission, when there is no reason on the record for returning the amount. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service in not transferring the amount in the account of Arshdeep Singh and deducting the amount without asking/intimating the complainant and this is unfair trade practice by deducting Rs.17,149.26 by the OP. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to return Rs.17,149.26 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The compliance of compensation including litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.  

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon          Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

08.11.2024                      Member                               President