ICICI BANK LIMITED, & ANR. vs SARITA VASHISHT, & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.03.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 568/2015, "ICICI Bank & Anr. versus Sarita Vashisht & Anr.", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 27.03.2015, passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana in consumer complaint No. 600/02.09.14, filed by the present respondent-1 Sarita Vashisht, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

The facts in brief are that the present respondent-1/complainant Sarita Vashisht was having an account No. 659601500695 with the petitioner-1 Bank ICICI Bank, G.T. Road, Khanna, having IFSC Code as ICICI0006596. It is stated in the consumer complaint that a sum of 10 lakh was to be transferred from the account of Susham Sharma, J.P. Sharma and M/s. S&S Associates from their account in opposite party-3 (OP-3) Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi to the account of the complainant in the petitioner-1/OP-1 Bank. On 21.03.2014, the said amount was transferred through three RTGS - 3.5 lakh each from the account of Susham Sharma and J.P. Sharma and another 3 lakh from the account of M/s. S&S Associates. While making the transfer, the name of the transferee and the recipient bank were written correctly, but inadvertently, the account number of the beneficiary was mentioned as 059601500695 instead of 659601500695. It is alleged that the petitioner-1/OP-1 ICICI Bank transferred the said amount of 10 lakh to account No. 059601500695, without verifying and matching the name of the recipient etc. The complainant brought the matter to the knowledge of the OP Bank, after which they transferred a sum of 1,94,187/- to the account of the complainant on 26.03.2014 and another sum of 7 lakh on 02.04.2014. In this way, a total sum of 8,94,187/- was transferred to the account of the complainant, out of 10 lakhs, resulting in balance amount of 1,05,713/-. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking remittance of the balance amount of 1,05,813/- in their account alongwith interest @15% p.a. and a compensation of 1 lakh for mental harassment etc. It is stated in the complaint that they approached the Banking Ombudsman for the purpose, but the said Authority wrongly closed their case.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioners ICICI Bank by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part in the matter, keeping in view the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as contained in their circular No. RBI/2010-11/235 DPSS(C)EPPD No./863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated 14.10.2010. The remitter of the money, Susham Sharma etc. had wrongly mentioned the account number of the beneficiary on the RTGS form. Moreover, as per the guidelines of the RBI, they were required to fill the account number of the beneficiary at two places on the RTGS Form, whereas they had mentioned the account number at one place only. On the other hand, the petitioner ICICI Bank had acted with due diligence in the matter and took steps for ensuring the transfer of money to the account of the complainant. Out of a sum of 10 lakh, they had been given a credit of 8,94,187/- already, after contacting the person to whom the money had been wrongly transferred. They were still in touch with that beneficiary for ensuring that the balance amount was also got transferred to the account of the complainant. For this purpose, they had written a letter dated 18.09.2014 to the wrong beneficiary, Ms. Vimala Baredu. The petitioner ICICI Bank maintained that since it was the duty of the complainant to have provided correct particulars in the RTGS form, there was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner ICICI Bank and hence, the complaint against them should be dismissed.

The District Forum, vide order dated 27.03.2015 partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the petitioner ICICI Bank to refund the balance amount of 1,05,813/- to the complainant within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they were liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of the wrong transfer till its realisation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner bank filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 09.03.2016, saying that the recipient Bank was required to take care and match the account number with the name of the complainant, before transferring the funds to the account number of some other person. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During arguments before us, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, wrong account number had been mentioned on the RTGS form by the remitter of the money in question. He has drawn attention to a copy of the RTGS form, upon which the wrong account number has been mentioned. Moreover, the said account number has been written only once, although there were instructions that the account number should be written twice. In the written arguments filed before this Commission by the petitioner Bank, it has been stated that the recipient Bank was required to transfer the money to the account number, as stated in the RTGS form. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service in so far as the petitioner Bank was concerned. However, the petitioner had still made efforts to recover the money from the wrong beneficiary and had been able to credit 8,94,187/- out of 10 lakh to the account of the complainant. In so far as the balance was concerned, the persons who had sent the money, or the Standard Chartered Bank from where the money had been sent, should be asked to pay the balance amount. The learned counsel further stated that they had already written a letter to Ms. Vimala Baredu on 08.09.2014, asking her consent to debit 1,05,813/- from her account, so that the same could be credited to the account of the complainant. In this manner, the bonafides of the petitioner Bank were quite clear and they had not indulged in any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the guidelines issued by the RBI, vide their letter dated 14.10.2010 saying that the responsibility to provide correct input in the payment instructions was with the remitter/originator.

The complainant/respondent No. 1 did not put in appearance during proceedings before this Commission in the present revision petition despite service. However, they sent their reply-cum-written arguments to the petition, which were taken on record. It has been stated therein that as per instruction 5(viii), the recipient bank was supposed to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credit and set right the mistake or to return the money to the originating bank. In the present case, therefore, the petitioner Bank was guilty of deficiency in service. The orders passed by the consumer fora were, therefore, in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Standard Chartered Bank stated that the transfer of money through RTGS is made, based on the particulars of the beneficiary provided by the applicant. Even if the account number of the beneficiary had been mentioned twice, it would not have made any difference on the outcome of the transaction. The learned counsel further stated that based on the instructions of the RBI, it was the duty of the destination bank to take necessary steps to undo the wrong.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The basic issue that needs to be addressed in the present case is as to whether the petitioner/recipient ICICI Bank is guilty of deficiency in service in any manner, in view of the clear-cut admission of the complainant in their consumer complaint that the account number of the beneficiary was wrongly mentioned by them inadvertently, while filling the RTGS form.

Both the parties have tried to place reliance on the instructions issued by the RBI dated 14.10.2010 in this regard and the consumer fora below have also relied upon the same, while pronouncing their order. It shall, therefore, be worthwhile to quote the relevant abstracts from these instructions, which inter alia, say as under:-

"5. Keeping in view the foregoing, in the RTGS / NEFT / NECS / ECS Credit products, it has since been decided as under :

i). Responsibility to provide correct inputs in the payment instructions, particularly the beneficiary account number information, rests with the remitter / originator. While the beneficiary''s name shall be compulsorily mentioned in the instruction request, and carried as part of the funds transfer message, reliance will be only on the account number for the purpose of affording credit . This is applicable both for transaction requests emanating at branches and those originated through the online / internet delivery channel. The name field in the message formats will, however, be a parameter to be used by the destination bank based on risk perception and / or use for post-credit checking or otherwise.

ii). Originating banks may put in place an appropriate maker-checker system to ensure that the account number information furnished by their customers is correct and free from errors. This may entail advising customers enjoying online / internet banking facilities to input the account number information more than once (with the first time feed being masked as in case of change of password requirements) or such other prescriptions. Customers submitting funds transfer requests at branches may be required to write down the account number information twice in the application form.

.............................

.............................

viii) The above notwithstanding, in cases where it is found that credit has been afforded to a wrong account, banks need to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credits and set right the mistake and / or return the transaction to the originating bank. This particularly needs to function very efficiently and pro-actively till such time customers are comfortable with the new arrangements."

It has been laid down clearly in clause 5(i) of the instructions above that the responsibility to provide correct input in the payment instructions particularly the beneficiary account number information rests with the remitter/originator. In the present case, it is stated by the complainant in his consumer complaint that the account number of the beneficiary was wrongly mentioned inadvertently, meaning thereby that the fault for the wrong credit in the recipient bank was upon the remitter/originator. In the orders passed by both the consumer fora below, the role of the senders of money Susham Sharma etc. or the standard chartered bank has not been gone into at all, meaning thereby that the orders passed by these fora are clearly perverse in the eyes of law. The origin of the mistake that occurred in the transaction, lies with the sender of the money and not with the recipient.

It has further been stated in para 5(i) above that while making transfer of funds, reliance will be only on the account number for the purpose of affording credit, although the name of the beneficiary has to be mentioned compulsorily. The name field in the message would be a parameter to be used by the destination Bank for post-credit checking or otherwise. It is evident, therefore, that the money being sent through RTGS gets credited into the bank account number mentioned in the transfer message. The name of the beneficiary is made use of by the destination Bank at the time of post-credit checking only.

It has been stated in clause 5(ii) above that the originator bank shall put in place a maker-checker system to ensure that the account number information furnished by their customer is correct and for that purpose, the customers shall be asked to write the account number information twice. It is evident that if the originating bank, i.e., Standard Chartered Bank did not insist on writing the account number twice, the faults lies with them as stated in clause 5(ii) above. In so far as the destination bank was concerned, they were required to use the name of the beneficiary for post-credit checking or otherwise.

Clause 5(viii) of the RBI instructions provides that the recipient Bank need to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credit and set right the mistake. In the present case, it is clear that when the petitioner Bank discovered that the money had been credited to a wrong account, they did make efforts to recover the money from the wrong beneficiary. They were successful in recovering a sum of 8,94,187/- and credit the same to the account of the complainant, leaving behind a balance of 1,05,813/-. As per letter dated 08.09.2014, placed on record, the petitioner Bank have stated that they were still making efforts to recover the balance money as well, from Ms. Vimala Baredu and shall credit the same to the account of the complainant, as soon as it is received. It is evident, therefore, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Bank, as they have taken the requisite action in accordance with the instructions issued by the RBI as stated above. On the other hand, the complainants have nowhere explained as to what efforts they have made to establish contact with the remitter of the money Susham Sharma etc. and get the balance amount from them for their failure in furnishing correct information to the Standard Chartered Bank.

In so far as the contention of the complainant that before giving credit to the wrong beneficiary, the recipient bank should have matched the name of the beneficiary with the account number, it is clear from clause 5(i) as stated already that the credit goes to the account number mentioned in the fund transfer message. The destination bank uses the name of the beneficiary during post-credit checking etc. and after that, they are supposed to take the necessary remedial action. In the present case, upon coming to know that a wrong credit had been made in favour of another account holder, the petitioner bank did make efforts to reverse the wrong entry. There is no justification, therefore, to attribute any fault on their part, which might come under the category of deficiency in service.

From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner ICICI Bank, rather the wrong transaction occurred due to incorrect information about the account number provided by the sender of the money to the complainants. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed the orders passed by both the consumer fora below are set aside and the consumer complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.