DATE OF HEARING: 02.08.2023
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.09.2023
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The OP bank has charged and debited the amount from the savings bank account of the complainant and when the amount was not refunded within stipulated time period by the OP after several approaches, the complainant filed this complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant sought following reliefs –
- For payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment and mental agony and refund of Rs.295/-.
- For payment of Rs.7500/- towards cost of litigation that is fees at Advocates, type charges, Xerox, IPO, etc. and pay such other order/orders as deem fit.
- Brief Fact of the Case:-
The complainant contended that, being nominee and husband of the insured Smt. MinatiPanigrahi bearing Policy No.:21802477 in ICICI providential retirement income solution III plan, wants to deposit Rs.52252/- towards 1st premium value. For the purpose, the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.:52252/Dated:15.01.2018 for Rs.52252/- in favour of the insurance company.
But to utter surprise of the complainant, the op bank has withdrawn an amount of Rs.295/- towards ‘outward return charge’ due to funds insufficient in the savings bank account no.:25030100011545 of the complainant on 15.01.2018.not to cancel the insurance policy, the complainant approached the op time and again. Accordingly, the CBO office of the OP again withdrawn the policy premium amount by using the same cheque on 24.01.2018 and informed to the complainant through message sent to the mobile. The complainant further attributed in his complaint that, for such deficient services of the op he suffered from the hypertension and lost his mental balance and his physician advised him for complete rest. Hence for such deficiency of services and unfair trade practice of op, the complainant filed the present complaint and sought the above reliefs.
- Heard on the point of admissibility and maintainability of the complaint, the Dist. Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the OP.
- Duly acknowledging the notice, the OP filed its written version denying the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.
The op stated in its written version that, the complainant is its customer. The OP confirmed through its W.V that, the complainant was having balance of Rs.54298/- on 10.01.2018. Further the OP stated that the cheque amounting of Rs.52252/- was present for clearance before their CBO Office at Bhubaneswar. Due to certain technical error/fault happened inadvertently by the electronic system the cheque amount which was debited from the account of the complainant was again credited in the same savings bank account on the same day but unfortunately for the said action, the system immediately debited an amount of Rs.295/- towards ‘outward return charges’ from the SB Account of the complainant for insufficient balance in the bank account on 15.01.2018. The OP bank has stated the same in its Written Version and also stated that, for further clearance of cheque bearing no:52252 their clearing office CBO Office, Bhubaneswar again present the cheque on 24.01.2018 which was cleared and paid the amount to the ICICI Prudential Life Ltd. But the OP vehemently denied about the complaint made by the complainant before them and the complainant has not taken any tangible steps like written complaint not filed with them and also not approached the Banking Ombudsman as per advertisement made by them in their bank premises. It also submitted by OP through WV that, the complainant has created physician prescription for the purpose of this case only. The complainant may have been suffered due to any other deficiencies in his body. The OP contended in its written version that, the amount which was debited towards ‘outward return charges’ has been reversed/credited the charges immediately after acknowledging the notice of the Hon’ble Commission. Hence there was no cause of action to file this complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there was no negligence in any manner not it amount to any deficiency in the services of the OP. The OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed as prayed by the OP bank.
To prove the complaint, the complainant filed his evidence in shape of affidavit that the complainant has approached the op bank from 15.01.2018 to 24.01.2018 when the amounting of Rs.295/- has been debited from his savings bank account maintained with the OP bank since long for insufficient balance in the said account. And the complainant informed about having of sufficient balance in the savings bank account since 10.01.2018 to the OP bank. And accordingly, the CBO office of the OP again presented the cheque amounting of Rs.52252/- for clearance on 24.01.2018.
The OP adduced its evidence on affidavit that, the op has reversed the amount of Rs.295/- as ‘Reversal of Charges’, which was debited from the savings bank account of the complainant towards ‘outward return charges’, after consultation with their CBO Office, Bhubaneswar when the OP received the notice from the Dist. CDR Commission in the instant case.In the interest of the customers, their CBO Office, Bhubaneswar again presented the cheque amounting of Rs.52252/- for clearance on 24.01.218. Hence there was no deficiency in services and unfair trade practice rendered by the OP bank to the complainant at all.
Finally, the parties to the case submitted in their written argument and final hearing that, the op bank has debited a sum of Rs.295/- from the savings bank account of the complainant towards insufficient funds whereas the complainant was having sufficient funds in his account on the date of transaction and the op has admitted the same in their written version and evidence. The complainant further submitted that to save insurance policy from the cancellation approached the OP bank from 15.01.2018 to 24.01.2018 repeatedly by visiting in person. But till date the said amount of Rs.295/- has not been refunded to the complainant. Therefore, debit of amount without sufficient reason is wrong and unfair trade practices and deficient services on the part of the OP. Defending its stands, the OP submitted on the date of final hearing that, the amount was reversed on 04.06.2018 when the notice was received from the Hon’ble Dist. CDR Commission after consultation with their CBO Office, Bhubaneswar. But the complainant failed to produce the copy of the complaint filed by him before the OP to redressal his grievance. Further the present OP is not responsible for the act of the CBO, Bhubaneswar and the present OP is no way responsible for the same. And the actual grievance of the complainant was already redressed by the OP in the year 2018.
On analyzing the complaint, written version, evidences, written arguments and available documents in the case record, it is manifest that, the complainant is the consumer in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The law is well settled that, “a person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.” Hence the complainant in the instant case is consumer. And the OP and its other branch or head office is the service provider in the instant case. In the present case, the CBO Office, Bhubaneswar is the head office of the OP bank and the service is vice-versa.
Further it is apparent from the case records that, the OP has refunded the amount of Rs.295/- only after received the notice from this Commission on 04.06.2018 but did not pay any interest for the period from 15.01.2018 to 04.06.2018 while reversed the money on 04.06.2018. The OP or its any office while providing services like clearance of cheque as per instruction of its customer, it is the first and foremost duty to check the balance in the bank account and after confirmation only, they should clear the cheque accordingly. But in the instant case, the CBO office of the OP bank in trivial manner operated the entire transaction and not settled within stipulated time period as laid down under Banking Regulation and Payment & Settlement Act, 2007. Therefore the service rendered by the OP bank is not in consonance with the Sec.2(g)/(o) read with Sec.2(r)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.And for which the complainant suffered from the health related issues and sustained torturous injuries in person. Hence it is tantamount to deficiency in services on the part of the OP bank. Further, the OP has not paid any interest on the amount of Rs.295/- for the said period to the complainant, hence it is termed as unfair trade practices. To redress the matter, the complainant knocked the door of the Commission by engaging a professional Advocate by paying the cost. In view of the above circumstances, the OP bank is liable to pay the adequate compensation and litigation cost to the complainant.
In our considered views and relying upon the instructions of the RBI in different times, banks have been mandated to resolve customer complaints by re-crediting the customer’s account within stipulated working days from the date of complaint. And if the complaint is not resolved within the given time-frame, then they are liable a pay a penalty of Rs.100/- per day. The penalty amount should be automatically credited to the account of the beneficiary by the bank. In the instant case, the op has not carried out said order of the RBI.
Hence we allowed the complaint against the Opposite Party on contest. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the complainant from the date of debit of amount of Rs.295/- from the savings bank account of the complainant i.e., from 15.01.2018 till the date of reversal by the OP bank i.e., 04.06.2018 together with the litigation cost of Rs.7000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
If the OP failed to pay the entire amount within the stipulated period of 45 days, the complainant is at liberty to recover the entire compensation amount along with the litigation cost at the rate of 12% per annum from the opposite party in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download the same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission. A copy of this judgment be provided to the Print &Press Media for publishing in their next edition in the larger interest of the consumers.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 18.09.2023.
