F.A. No. 482 of 2014 and C.C. No. 168 of 2013. Case: Mangatapalli Sivaram Gupta Vs Bank of India. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:F.A. No. 482 of 2014 and C.C. No. 168 of 2013
Party Name:Mangatapalli Sivaram Gupta Vs Bank of India
Counsel:For Appellant: M. Sasikala Devi, Advocate and For Respondents: Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate
Judges:Noushad Ali, J. (President)
Issue:Consumer Law
Citation:IV (2015) CPJ 1 (AP)
Judgement Date:July 15, 2015
Court:Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Noushad Ali, J. (President)

  1. This appeal filed by the complainant is directed against the order dated 9.7.2014 in C.C. No. 168/2013 passed by the District Forum, Srikakulam, whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant is an account holder in the respondent-Bank of India. On 31.10.2011 he remitted an amount of Rs. 1,25,000 for being transferred through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) to Ultratech Cement Limited Unit, Mumbai through the respondent-bank. It appears that the amount was not credited to the account of Ultratech Cement Limited, but was credited to the account of Sri Sai Filling Station, Kollavanipeta village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Having noticed that the amount was not credited to the intending party, the appellant called upon the respondent-bank through letters as well as Ex. A. 3 legal notice dated 19.10.2013 to make good the loss by depositing the amount into his account. Having failed to invoke positive response, the appellant filed the complaint in question.

  2. The respondent-bank opposed the claim by pleading that the amount was credited as per the entries made in the voucher submitted by the appellant himself and it is not liable for the claim.

  3. The Forum on a consideration of the material on record dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent-bank as the amount was credited by it as per the voucher furnished by the appellant.

  4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would reiterate the contentions raised before the Forum and also urge that the appellant had filled up the voucher by mentioning the name of the recipient of the amount correctly. He would argue that the account number mentioned in the voucher was not filled up by the appellant and the appellant being a regular customer of the bank, the bank itself should have taken care in transferring the amount to the beneficiary.

  5. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the amounts would be transferred under the RTGS System only through account numbers and not by the names of the beneficiaries. It is further contended that the appellant himself had given the account number of the beneficiary and the amount was credited to the said number.

  6. This Commission has considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the material on record.

  7. Ex. B. 12 is the voucher submitted along with the cheque. No doubt it shows the name of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial