IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/03/2013.
Date of Filing: 03.01.2013. Date of Final Order: 25.02.2015.
Complainant: Rathin Singha Roy, S/o Ranjit Singha Roy, Vill. Chakbazar, P.O. & P.S. Islampur, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chak-Islampur Branch, Chak-Islampur, Dist. Murshidabad.
Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate for the complainant
Sri Sankar Prasad Saha, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party
Present: Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra …..…….…. Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….………..…….…. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali- Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed u/s 12 of C.P. Act praying for direction upon the OP-Bank to pay the sum of Rs.2000/- to the account of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant has a S.B. Account being No. 31072747888 with the OP-Bank, which was operated regularly by the complainant. But, the complainant observed that his statement of accounts shows that Rs.2000/- has been ‘Set-Hold’ from his account on 05.07.2012. So, the complainant lodged complaint before the OP-Bank against such illegal act. Then on 19.09.2012, the Bank deleted the ‘Hold’ but the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant. Then the complainant is bound to file this case for proper redress.
On the other hand, the OP-State Bank of India appeared in this case by filing Written Version, where he denied all the material facts, but only admitted position is that the complainant has a S.B. account with the OP Bank, along with ATM Card facility. According to the OP, on 01.04.2012 the complainant withdrew Rs.2000/- from UBI, Islampur Branch ATM counter but due to link failure the transaction was not shown in the Statement. So, the complainant withdrew another sum of Rs.2000/- from the S.B.I. Islampur Branch ATM Counter to grab the extra money. The OP-Bank also stated that ATM service is running through a link system operation by a Server, which is doing everything like withdraw, made on entry in the Branch Code and Branch General Ledger (B.G.L), even if any dispute arose, then Server system find out and solve automatically. For that, in this case, the Server made ‘Set Hold’ of the excess amount of the complainant’s account as well as deleted the ‘Hold’ automatically when enough amounts was in the account. So, the OP-Bank is not liable for deficiency in service; rather the complainant lodged a baseless and imaginary complaint against the OP, for which the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
Now, this Forum is to consider as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons.
It is to be mentioned that the complainant submitted some original documents along with Xerox copies before the Forum in support of his case. The OP also submitted some Xerox copies of documents to proceed with the case.
There is no dispute that the complainant has a SB. Account with the OP-Bank, but dispute arose when the complainant observed in his Pass-Book that a sum of Rs. 2000/- was ‘Set Hold’ by the OP-Bank on 05.07.2012 and on 19.09.2012 the ‘Hold’ was deleted but the amount was not credited in his account till date. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP has submitted that actually the complainant withdrew the said amount in two times from the two different ATM Counters on 01.04.2012. In support of this statement the OP submitted one Xerox copy of statement of A/C being made by ATM Switch Centre. According to OP every activity of ATM is run and controlled through a link system by a Server. So, when the complainant 1st time withdrew the amount at UBI ATM counter but due to link failure the said withdrawal has not been shown in the statement, then the complainant took the opportunity to grab the extra money and withdrew another Rs.2000/- from SBI ATM counter.
But the Server System detected the matter and noting ‘Set Hold’ on 05.07.2012 and thereafter when sufficient balance was in the account the Server noting deleted ‘Hold’ and debited the amount automatically on 19.09.2012.
Perused all the documents submitted by the parties we observed that the pass-book of the complainant only shows ‘set Hold’ on 05.07.2012 without any remark but on 19.09.2012 shows deleted ‘Hold’ with note ATM dt. 18.04.12. (Annexure-2).
Without going to the juncture of dates, perused all the documents, we concentrate on the pass-book (Annexure- 2) along with documents(Annexure-C) both the documents show that on 01.04.2015 the balance amount of the complainant was Rs.2831/- out of which the complainant withdrew sum of Rs.2000/- and so the balance at that time was only Rs.831/- in his account. So, the theory of second time withdrawal of Rs.2000/- is not clear to us, rather it is impossible, as because we know that ATM system payment is not like a credit system, it depends on balance in the account.
It transpires from the copy of Reconciliation of transaction at ATMs failure-time Limit of Reserve Bank of India dated 17th July,2009 that i). It is mandatory for the banks to reimburse the customers, the amount wrongfully debited on account of failed ATM transactions, within a maximum period of 12 working days from the date of receipt of the customer complaint. ii). For any failure to re-credit the customer’s account within 12 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint, the bank shall pay compensation of Rs.100/-, per day, to the aggrieved customer. This compensation shall be credited to the customer’s account automatically without any claim from the customer, on the same day when the bank affords the credit for the failed ATM transaction.iii). The issuer bank is entitled to claim such compensation paid to the customer from the acquirer bank, if the delay is attributed to the latter. By the same logic the ATM network operators shall compensate the banks for any delay on their part.
In view of these circumstances, our considered opinion is that the complainant is not liable for withdrawal of extra amount, but due to ‘Set Hold’ of the amount of Rs.2000/- by the OP-Bank, he suffered economically as well as availability of smooth banking service. As such the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the considering the period of delay to credit the amount in the account of the complainant following the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.
On the other hand, the OP-Bank is responsible to provide his service to the complainant as his customer, but with an unknown reason the OP-Bank failed to prove the point raised by them. Bank is not only for this complainant but for the nation it is very important for smooth and easy service. In this view, the OP-Bank is liable for deficiency in service on their part. So, the OP-Bank is guilty of deficiency in service and shall be compensate the complainant.
Thus, the instant case is succeeded.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 03/2013 be and the same is hereby allowed without any cost.
The Opposite Party is directed pay the withheld amount of Rs. 2000/- as well as Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony to the complainant within a month from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the OP has to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the same is to be deposited in State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under registered post with A/D to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member
CDRF, Murshidabad. CDRF, Murshidabad.
