DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 06/06/2023
CC/149/2023
Vijayashri R.M.
Santhi, Attingal,
Thiruvalathur Post,
Palakkad – 678 551 - Complainant
(Through Authorised representative,
Shri. Ajithkumar K.)
Vs
- Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kunnathurmedu,
Palakkad.
- Asst. General Manager,
SBI, Regional Office,
Robinson Road,
Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(By Adv. P.V. Beena)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complainant pleads to be an account holder of the OP bank. An amount of Rs. 8194/- was debited from her account without her consent or knowledge on 17/10/2022(date seems to be a mistake as transaction is seen done on 29/10/2022). Complainant informed the opposite party regarding this unauthorized transfer but the opposite party had failed to comply with her request for refund and stated that her complaint was dismissed by the internal Ombudsman. Further it took over 7 months for the opposite parties to inform the complainant regarding dismissal of her complaint.
- OPs filed joint version repudiating complaint pleadings stating that the complainant had, by her own volition, transferred the amount by entering her password. Complainant’s claim was forwarded to Bank’s SOP committee and they had forwarded the same to Bank’s internal Ombudsman. Upon verification of the facts the complaint was rejected. Complaint is only liable to be dismissed.
The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the debit in the account of the complainant is due to sharing of credentials of the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A4.
(ii) OPs filed proof affidavit, but did not mark any documents.
(iii) Even though the OP had filed an application as IA 236/2024 seeking to cross
examine the complainant, a copy of the application was not served on the complainant as contemplated under Regulation 10(6). Hence the application was dismissed. Thereafter the O.P. laid the matter to rest.
Issue Nos. 1&2
5. Fact that the complainants’ account was debited is not in dispute. It is the complainant’s case that the debit was carried out without her knowledge or consent. The OPs have vehemently opposed this pleading and stated that it was the complainant herself who had entered the password and thus causing transfer.
6. Evidence on the complainant comprised of Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A2 is the statement of account pertaining to the bank account of the complainant held in the opposite party bank. The disputed transfer is seen to have been made on 29/10/2022. The sum transferred is Rs.8194/-. Balance amount in the account is 0.21 paise.
7. The only question that is to be considered is whether the transfer was with the consent of the complainant.
8. The opposite parties had, post receipt of a complaint from the complainant forwarded the same to the SOP committee who forwarded the same to Bank’s internal Ombudsman for further review and verifying the other factors involved in the transaction. It goes without stating that the contents in the documents which were before the SOP committee and internal Ombudsman and their findings would show the actual nature of transaction until disproved. When the O.P.s plead that an internal Ombudsman had appraised and assayed the complaint and the explanation of the Bank and had come to a result, and is basing their defense herein on the contents therein, they are bound to produce these documents before this Commission so that the dispute can be appreciated judicially. But the opposite party had failed to produce these documents for the perusal of this Commission.
9. It would also be pertinent to note that subsequent to filing of complaint before the OPs during the final days of October 2022, the OPs had not provided a reply to the complainant until she had filed an application under RTI. Ext.A4 reply made by OP is clear that the complainant’s case was rejected by the committee as early as December, 2022. But no explanation is provided as to why the complainant was not informed about the developments until June, 2023, when O.P. received the query under RTI.
10. Non-production of the said documents would only go to prove that the OP Bank has no inclination to reveal the contents in the said documents. Nothing prevented the OP from producing these documents before this Commission. O.P.s have no case that the said documents are not in their custody. Having failed to do so, we can resort to adverse inference without any qualms.
11. It is also strange to note that a person who holds an account would transfer the entire amounts in her account to a third party leaving merely 21 paise in her account. This fact is relevant when we consider that the amount transferred is not a Rounded figure, but Rs.8194/-, which is a non-round figure. Not that a non-rounded figure cannot be transferred, but that this non-round figure happens to be the entire amount in the account of the complainant.
12. We therefore hold that the O.P.s has not adduced any evidence to prove that the complainant herself had initiated the transfer by adducing cogent evidence. There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Issue No.3
13. The complainant has sought for recredit of Rs.8194/- to the complainant, for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and for cost. We find the claim for recredit, compensation and cost to be reasonable. But the claim for Rs.5 lakhs is exorbitant. We disallow that claim and allow a reduced amount as compensation.
Issue No.4
14. Pursuant to the discussions above we allow the complaint on the following terms:
1. Complainant is entitled to receive Rs.8,194/- along with interest @10% from 29/10/2022 till the date of payment.
2. Complainants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
3. Complainants are entitled to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
4 OPs shall comply with the aforesaid directives within 45 days of receipt of this Order, failing which they shall pay Rs.1000/- per month or part thereof as solatium from the date of this Order till the date of full and final compliance of this Order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Photocopy of front page of pass book
Ext.A2 – Print out of statement of account
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of query under RTI Act.
Ext.A4 - Photocopy of reply to Ext.A3.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
