Order No. 13 dt. 08/01/2020
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant maintains a savings bank account with o.p. no.1 bank. He opened a Systematic Investment Plan with o.p. no.2 on monthly payment of Rs.1000/- and the amount was credited through ECS the same continued till 15.12.12. After closure of the said SIP the amount was remitted through NEFT for crediting in account no. 08710100006595 and was credited in the said account of Bank of Baroda, Luharia Branch, Rajasthan. The complainant came to learn that he deposited till 08/08/2017 amounting to Rs.85,960.80 and the complainant wanted to withdraw the said amount through NEFT and also wrote a letter to the Accounts Manager, UTI Mutual Fund, Kolkata dated 31/08/2017 for sending the deposited amount to his bank account. The complainant after waiting for a few months requested the o.p. no.2 to pay the amount, but from the statement given by the banker of the complainant, Bank of Baroda dated 04/07/2018 stating that the said amount was remitted through NEFT for crediting in account no. 08710100006595. The complainant has categorically stated that he is maintaining a savings bank account in o.p. no.1 bank and still continuing the said account, but o.p. nos. 1 and 2 did not verify the account no. to which the amount was send for crediting in respect of the name such account number, address and other formalities. The complainant, thereafter, lodged a complaint to CA&FBP, Govt. of West Bengal, but no fruitful result was achieved. It has been alleged by the complainant that the UTI arranged to make payment in favour of the complainant has mentioned the wrong account number which was not existing in the name of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed t his case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.85,908.60 as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In the w/v the o.p. no.1 stated that the complainant opened a savings account with o.p. no.1 bearing no. 08740100006595 since 21/06/2006. The complainant approached the o.p. no.2 for investing the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month and the monthly remittance through ECS system was made by o.p. no.1. The regular remittance of Rs.1,000/- per month through ECS was the obligation on the part of o.p. no.1 which o.p. no.1 meticulously followed and discharged its liability till 15/02/2012 and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1. The complainant issued instruction to o.p. no.2 UTI to refund the amount to the credit of his account and the account number mentioned by the complainant in the prescribed form of o.p. no.2 as 0871000006595 instead of his account no. 08740100006595. The o.p. no.1 being renowned expert service provider has full knowledge under NEFT system the account number is of the prime importance and the amount remitted through NEFT would be directly credited to the account number mentioned therein in the NEFT form without taking any care, consideration of the name mentioned therein in the NEFT form. Under such circumstances and system of NEFT it was the utmost responsibility, duty and only liability of o.p. no.2 to check the number before effecting the remittance which was mentioned in the form submitted by their customer. Since o.p. no.2 had obtained the ECS mandate and o.p. no.2 had the number in their knowledge, information and record o.p. no.2 failed and neglected to verify the actual account number of the complainant and remitted the amount to account number 08710100006595 instead of 08740100006595. In view of such fact o.p. no.1 categorically stated that there is no fault on the part of o.p. no.1 and as such, the o.p. no.1 cannot not be held liable for any deficiency in service and the case is to be dismissed.
In their w/v the o.p. no.2 stated that the complainant had invested in Systematic Investment Plan (SIP). The common application was filled up by the complainant itself and he furnished his bank details mentioning the bank account number 087:0100006595. The o.p. o.2 treated the account number as 08710100006595 and accordingly, the said account was entered in the data base of o.p. no.2. The complainant has concealed the fact of providing incorrect account number and he has not come with clean hands. The complainant was provided with the statement of accounts wherein his bank account details was captured and the complainant himself has annexed the statement of accounts dated 20/12/2013 wherein the bank account number was incorporated as 87101100006595 Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata. It was further stated that although the account number could not be recorded correctly due to non availability of correct details repurchase proceeds was remitted to the correct bank branch. Since account number was pertaining to Bank of Baroda, Luharia Branch, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata out of their own transferred the amount to their Luharia Branch, Udaipur without scrutinizing and verifying the name of account holder and consequently wrong remittance has occurred. Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata ought to have returned the remittance on the ground account number is not pertaining to their branch instead of transferring the fund to their Luharia Branch. In view of such fact o.p. no.2 categorically stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2 and as such, the case is to be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant mentioning the wrong account number provided to o.p. no.2 at the time of filling up common application form?
- Whether o.p. no.1 committed any deficiency service or o.p. no.2?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant maintains a savings bank account with o.p. no.1 bank and he also opened a Systematic Investment Plan with o.p. no.2 on monthly payment of Rs.1000/- and the amount was credited through ECS the same continued till 15.12.12. After closure of the said SIP the amount was remitted through NEFT for crediting in account no. 08710100006595 and was credited in the said account of Bank of Baroda, Luharia Branch, Rajasthan. The complainant came to learn that he deposited till 08/08/2017 amounting to Rs.85,960.80 and the complainant wanted to withdraw the said amount through NEFT and also wrote a letter to the Accounts Manager, UTI Mutual Fund, Kolkata dated 31/08/2017 for sending the deposited amount to his bank account. The complainant after waiting for a few months requested the o.p. no.2 to pay the amount, but from the statement given by the banker of the complainant, Bank of Baroda dated 04/07/2018 stating that the said amount was remitted through NEFT for crediting in account no. 08710100006595. The complainant has categorically stated that he is maintaining a savings bank account in o.p. no.1 bank and still continuing the said account, but o.p. nos. 1 and 2 did not verify the account no. to which the amount was send for crediting in respect of the name such account number, address and other formalities. The complainant, thereafter, lodged a complaint to CA&FBP, Govt. of West Bengal, but no fruitful result was achieved. It has been alleged by the complainant that the UTI arranged to make payment in favour of the complainant has mentioned the wrong account number which was not existing in the name of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed t his case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.85,908.60 as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the complainant opened a savings account with o.p. no.1 bearing no. 08740100006595 since 21/06/2006. The complainant approached the o.p. no.2 for investing the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month and the monthly remittance through ECS system was made by o.p. no.1. The regular remittance of Rs.1,000/- per month through ECS was the obligation on the part of o.p. no.1 which o.p. no.1 meticulously followed and discharged its liability till 15/02/2012 and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1. The complainant issued instruction to o.p. no.2 UTI to refund the amount to the credit of his account and the account number mentioned by the complainant in the prescribed form of o.p. no.2 as 0871000006595 instead of his account no. 08740100006595. The o.p. no.1 being renowned expert service provider has full knowledge under NEFT system the account number is of the prime importance and the amount remitted through NEFT would be directly credited to the account number mentioned therein in the NEFT form without taking any care, consideration of the name mentioned therein in the NEFT form. Under such circumstances and system of NEFT it was the utmost responsibility, duty and only liability of o.p. no.2 to check the number before effecting the remittance which was mentioned in the form submitted by their customer. Since o.p. no.2 had obtained the ECS mandate and o.p. no.2 had the number in their knowledge, information and record o.p. no.2 failed and neglected to verify the actual account number of the complainant and remitted the amount to account number 08710100006595 instead of 08740100006595. In view of such fact o.p. no.1 categorically stated that there is no fault on the part of o.p. no.1 and as such, the o.p. no.1 cannot not be held liable for any deficiency in service and the case is to be dismissed.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that the complainant had invested in Systematic Investment Plan (SIP). The common application was filled up by the complainant itself and he furnished his bank details mentioning the bank account number 087:0100006595. The o.p. o.2 treated the account number as 08710100006595 and accordingly, the said account was entered in the data base of o.p. no.2. The complainant has concealed the fact of providing incorrect account number and he has not come with clean hands. The complainant was provided with the statement of accounts wherein his bank account details was captured and the complainant himself has annexed the statement of accounts dated 20/12/2013 wherein the bank account number was incorporated as 87101100006595 Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata. It was further stated that although the account number could not be recorded correctly due to non availability of correct details repurchase proceeds was remitted to the correct bank branch. Since account number was pertaining to Bank of Baroda, Luharia Branch, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata out of their own transferred the amount to their Luharia Branch, Udaipur without scrutinizing and verifying the name of account holder and consequently wrong remittance has occurred. Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata ought to have returned the remittance on the ground account number is not pertaining to their branch instead of transferring the fund to their Luharia Branch. In view of such fact o.p. no.2 categorically stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2 and as such, the case is to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant maintains a savings bank account with o.p. no.1 bank and he invested the amount in the form of SIP with o.p. no.2 and the amount was paid through ECS system. After continuation of such investment the complainant wanted to have the return of the amount. The complainant at the time of filling up the common application form for open-end equity and balance claim furnished the details including the name of the bank and account number. In the column of account number the complainant categorically stated that the account no. 087:0100006595. The complainant also furnished a blank cheque issued by o.p. no.1 wherein the bank account number was mentioned and in the said cheque, it was categorically stated that the account number was mentioned 087:0100006595. The complainant deposited the amount in such manner and the amount was also credited through ECS system by the bank in favour of o.p. no.2. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant after expressing his desire to close the account and wanted to have the return of the amount approached the o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 through NEFT paid the said amount prior to closing of the said account o.p. no.2 provided the statement of accounts to the complainant whereby the account was mentioned as 08710100006595. The said statement has been filed by the complainant. The statement dated 23/12/2013 categorically mentioned the account number of the complainant also which he used to maintain with o.p. no.1 at the relevant point of time. Subsequently he also continued the said account which has not been disputed by the complainant as well as the o.p. no.1. The o.p. no.1 has stated that in respect of transferring the amount in the said account number through NEFT they had no role to play to ascertain the account number and the name of the account holder and directly the amount was credited in the said account. It is very unfortunate that although the account number could not be recorded correctly due to non availability of correct details repurchase proceeds was remitted to the correct bank branch. Since the account was pertaining to Bank of Baroda, Luharia Branch, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Bank of Baroda, Surya Sen Street Branch, Kolkata out of their own transferred the amount to their Luharia Branch, Udaipur without scrutinizing and verifying the name of account holder and consequently wrong remittance has occurred. The o.p. no.1 ought to have returned the remittance on the ground account number was not pertaining to their branch instead of transferring the fund to their Luharia Branch, Udaipur, Rajasthan. In view of such fact, we hold that o.p. no.1 is solely responsible for wrong remittance of proceeds and o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable in any manner whatsoever. The o.p. no.2 has rightly paid the amount as per the direction of the complainant and as such we hold that o.p. no.1 committed the deficiency in service and the complainant has suffered, for which o.p. no.1 is liable to pay the total amount as well as compensation and litigation cost, which is the complainant entitled to get. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, Ordered
That the CC No. 68 of 2019 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.1 is directed to pay the total amount of Rs.85,908/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
