State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Citi Bank vs M/S B.D.R. Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 3 December, 2014
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 03.12.2014 First Appeal-08/2010 (Arising out of the order dated 03.08.2009 passed in Complainant Case No. 561/2008 passed by District Forum Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi) In the matter of: 1. The Manager, Citi Bank Jeevan Bharti Building Connaught Place, New Delhi 2. The Manager, Citibank Customer Services, Centralised Customer P.O.Box No. 4830, Anna Salai P.O. Chennai-600002 .Appellants Versus M/s B.D.R. Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4864, Bara Tooti Chowk Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 Through Its Director Sh. Neeraj Jain .Respondent CORAM S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial) S.C.Jain, Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? S.A.Siddiqui , Member (Judicial) JUDGEMENT
1) This is an appeal under section 15 r.w. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act) against the order dt. 03.08.2009 passed by the District Forum, New Delhi, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, in Complaint Case No. 561/2008 M/s B.D.R. Products Pvt. Ltd. V/s Citybank, N.A. and proceedings in Execution Petition No. 497/2009 filed pursuant to the said order by the decree holder/complainant.
2) Relevant facts upto the stage of filing of the appeal are described below.
3) Complainant/respondent opened a current account bearing No. 04337145225 with the OP on 25.08.2001. The complainant/respondent duly gave standing instructions to the appellant/OP City Bank to issue FIRC whenever OP got the payment. The complainant earlier faced problems several times as and when they got foreign exchange payment. The complainant/respondent was an export firm and exported their goods mostly through air shipment and they never got FIRC from the OP and OP never accepted the original documents without having FIRC with set of exports documents to send to customers. In many cases of Air Shipments, the complainants customers faced problems, because there was heavy demurrage every day on Air Shipments as a result of which most of the customers of complainant stopped buying goods from the complainant due to negligence on the part of the OP.
4) On 06.09.2007, complainant/respondent deposited a cheque of USD 4600 with the OP-1 and complainant got a letter from OP dated 11.09.2007 that the said cheque will take 2-3 weeks for clearance. After one month the complainant checked for this payment but customer care officer of OP gave reply that no record for this was available with them. The complainant thereafter gave details of the letter dt. 11.09.2007 to the officer of the OP, who assured the complainant that she will check and arrange and call back to the complainant, but she failed to do so. The complainant again checked and found from the statement of the account that cheque has been cleared in Indian Currency for a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/-, which were duly credited in the account of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant sent the goods against the said advance payment of the customer. The OP also issued FIRC on 20.11.2007 in favour of the complainant, but to utter surprise of the complainant/respondent, the OP unjustifiably/illegally debited Rs. 1,84,000/- against the confirmation by the customer care manager and shown clearly in the statement of account, the return of the cheque, the amount of which was illegally debited because against the issuance of the said FIRC, the complainant had dispatched the goods of the said value. This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant when he was supplied the debit advice by OP wherein they had debited Rs. 1,84,000/- from the current account of the complainant. Therefore the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,84,000/- due to the wrongful acts of the OP. Thus the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the said amount of Rs. 1,84,000/- with interest, from the OP. Further by virtue of the said current account, the OP issued three credit cards bearing No. CITI Gold 4564070019038002 and 4054500010673008 in the name of the Sh. Neeraj Jain Director of the Complainant Bank and citi cash back card No. 4550388663313000 in the name of Mrs. Deepa Jain another Director of the complainant bank. As regards the card No. 3000 the same was issued with the condition to get upto 5% cash back and so all expenses were being paid through this card but when OP-1 saw that customer is getting more cash back, the OP withdrew the said scheme without intimation to the holder of the card.
5) In the Bill of the card dt.
22.07.2002 and 22.08.2007 the OPs were paying 7 MTNL and 4RIM bills directly as per given standing instruction to the OP but in bill dt. 22.09.2007 and bill dt. 24.10.2007, the OP paid only 4 RIM and did not pay MTNL bills. The OP were instructed by the complainant to pay all bills of MTNL and RIM and these instructions were confirmed by the RIT. Therefore without any intimation OP was not entitled to change the payment schedule.
This caused a big problem to the complainant as all the MTNL phones were disconnected for non-payment. Besides, the OP had made payment to hutch bills for Rs. 1943.38 P on Card No. 8002 and also paid the same amount on card No. 3008 on 17.06.2007 especially when the OP did not have standing instructions on Card No. 8002 with OPs phone banking officer in June, 2007, OP had no authority to make the payment and that too on two accounts. Further the OP debited from the current account No. 0433715225 of the complainant a sum of Rs. 12434.05 on Card No. 8002, Rs. 9603 on Card No. 3008 and Rs. 8973 on Card No. 3000 as the complainants were never been informed by the OP. Under the circumstances, complainant was compelled to send notice to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 10 Lac as damages suffered by the complainant for causing harassment mental pain and agony etc. and USD 4600 i.e. Rs. 1,84,000/- in Indian Currency but the OP failed to reply the same. Therefore, complainant had to filed a consumer complaint seeking directions of payment of Rs. 1,84,000/- towards the amount of cheque of 4600 USD along with compensation and also to remove the name of complainant and its directors from the blacklist of the bank.
6) After filing the complainant, notice was issued to OP/appellant, who filed his reply denying all allegations. In its reply, OP alleged that cheque for USD 4600 was found forged when it was sent to the foreign bank who had issued the same, for encashment but it was returned as forged.
The OP therefore rightly debited the account of the complainant with the Indian Currency of Rs. 1,84,000/- even though the same has initially been credited. When the entry was made to the credit of the complainant, complainant despatched the goods for which OP cannot be faulted. OP further alleged that as regards the payment of seven MTNL Bills on the card, the same was not paid in September and October, 2007 as the biller did not validate the transaction because of which OP did not pay any MTNL Bills. As regards the standing instructions for the hutch bills on both the cards, the OP noted that the standing instructions have been registered directly with the biller.
It was submitted that the double payment had happened only because the complaint was registered for standing instructions both with the bank and with the biller. In any view of the matter, the OP was not guilty of any deficiency of service on any count.
7) Parties led evidence in support of their cases.
The Ld. District Forum after evaluation of evidence on record, recorded the finding of deficiency of service on the part of the OP/appellant bank and directed the OP to pay Rs. 1,84,000/- to the complainant/respondent and also remove the name of the complainant from defaulter list. OP was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 Lac, besides paying Rs. 20,000/- for costs of litigation within the period of 30 days.
8) OP-Citybank felt aggrieved and filed this appeal which is before us for consideration. The appeal was filed inter-alia on the grounds that while passing the impugned order Ld. District Forum did not ensure that principle of natural justice were followed rather it was in complete violation of the same. The Ld. District Forum failed to comprehend that all credits to the account under the facility were previously and especially subject to final realisation under relevant clearing house regulation. On all instruments, the return and credit risk will be assumed by the customer.
9) The complainant/respondent was bound by the terms and conditions applicable to the current account opened with the bank. This fact was especially mentioned in account opening form duly signed by the respondent, the said terms and conditions were delivered to the respondent along with welcome kit sent by the appellant. When respondent deposited the cheque bearing # 4279, drawn on Bank of America, for USD 4600 on 08.09.2007, its equivalent amount in Rupees was provisionally credited by the appellant i.e. (Rs. 1,84,000/-) on the date of which the provisional credit was made. Subsequently, the said cheque was sent to the drawee bank for processing. The said cheque was found forged. Accordingly, as per the terms of the agreement for International Cash Letter Service Facility, the account of the respondent was debited by the appellant for the sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- on 05.12.2007 since the earlier credit was only provisional and was subject to actual payment being received by the appellant-bank in respect of the instrument under processing.
The Ld. District Forum committed error of law when it observed that the if the cheque was forged the OP bank should taken up the matter with the foreign bank who had declared it forged and should have instructed it to get a police case registered for proper investigation to nail the culprit. It was not the duty of the bank in practice.
10) We have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant; the respondent could not be heard as there was none.
11) It was argued on behalf of the appellant that on 06.09.2007 cheque bearing # 4279 USD 4600 issued by Bank of America was deposited with the OP-1. Accordingly, an amount equivalent to Indian Rupee 1,84,000/- was previously credited by the appellant in the current account of the complainant/respondent but it was always subject to final realisation. It was sent to the drawee bank for processing subsequently the cheque was found forged therefore as per the terms of the agreement, the account of the respondent was debited for the same i.e. Rs. 1,84,000/- on 05.12.2007; it was important to note that earlier credited in the current account of the complainant/respondent was purely provisional subject to actual payment being received by the appellant bank in respect of the instrument under processing. It was not the duty of the appellant bank to take up the matter of forged cheque with the bank of America who issued the cheque. Such a practice was not prevalent amongst the banks.
12) We have carefully examined the evidence on record. Certified copy of the order dt.
03.12.2009 (EX/497/09) has been placed on record. This shows that during the course of execution proceedings, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 04,04,000/- from the Reserve Bank of India has been received by the District Forum and the cheque was handed over to the counsel for the DH. The execution proceedings were dismissed in fully satisfaction as the District Forum decree stood fully satisfied.
13) On perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned order dt. 03.08.2009 we are broadly in agreement with the finding recorded by Ld. District Forum in its impugned order but we are also of the firm view that the impugned order needs modification in as much as amount of compensation of Rs. 2 Lac appears excessive looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, no cogent or plausible reason or justification has been assigned for awarding compensation of Rs. 2 Lac. We therefore modify the impugned order in the following manner:-
i.
OP/appellant bank will pay a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- to the complainant. OP/appellant bank will further pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lac as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant/respondent. Besides, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be paid towards costs of litigation. Since an amount of Rs. 2 Lac towards compensation has already been realised, the complainant/respondent shall refund a sum of Rs. 1 Lac to the OP/appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
14) In case of default in refund of the amount of Rs. 1 Lac by the complainant/respondent, the appellant/OP shall be at liberty to take recourse to the relevant legal provision contained the Act.
15) Let a copy of the judgment be also made available to the District Forum concerned for placing the same on record and for compliance.
16) FDR if any deposited by the appellant shall be released as per rule.
(S.A.SIDDIQUI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (S.C.JAIN) MEMBER FATIMA