Bank transfers ₹48K to wrong a/c, held guilty of ‘careless’ transaction
Rebecca.Samervel@timesgroup.com
Mumbai:20.05.2019
Holding Canara Bank guilty of carrying out a careless real-time gross settlement (RTGS) transfer through which ₹48,000 was sent to the wrong account, the state consumer commission recently said it cannot solely depend on the account number and transfer amounts without cross-checking names of the beneficiary, branch and city where the branch is.
Pradeep Tripathi, from Parel, found that the money he wanted transferred to the account of a business supplier in Chandigarh was sent to the account of an unknown person in Hyderabad. The bank was recently ordered to refund the amount along with a compensation of around ₹32,000.
A district forum had ruled in Tripathi’s favour in June 2018. But the bank moved an appeal before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The commission upheld the district forum order. “The forum rightly held that the correct account number was written by the complainant (Tripathi) on the RTGS transfer slip but opponent (Canara Bank) did not verify before making the transfer and had done it carelessly, and transferred the amount to a different account.
“The forum correctly held that the complainant was not responsible for the mistake by the bank and it was guilty and responsible for the deficiency in service,” the state commission said.
Rebecca.Samervel@timesgroup.com
Mumbai:20.05.2019
Holding Canara Bank guilty of carrying out a careless real-time gross settlement (RTGS) transfer through which ₹48,000 was sent to the wrong account, the state consumer commission recently said it cannot solely depend on the account number and transfer amounts without cross-checking names of the beneficiary, branch and city where the branch is.
Pradeep Tripathi, from Parel, found that the money he wanted transferred to the account of a business supplier in Chandigarh was sent to the account of an unknown person in Hyderabad. The bank was recently ordered to refund the amount along with a compensation of around ₹32,000.
A district forum had ruled in Tripathi’s favour in June 2018. But the bank moved an appeal before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The commission upheld the district forum order. “The forum rightly held that the correct account number was written by the complainant (Tripathi) on the RTGS transfer slip but opponent (Canara Bank) did not verify before making the transfer and had done it carelessly, and transferred the amount to a different account.
“The forum correctly held that the complainant was not responsible for the mistake by the bank and it was guilty and responsible for the deficiency in service,” the state commission said.
No comments:
Post a Comment