DATE OF FILING: 07.09.2009.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.4.2016.
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
Deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Parties (in short, O.Ps) is the grievance of the complainant in this consumer dispute.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the customer, hereinafter a consumer of the O.P.No.1 and holds a S.B. Account No. 11103 at Digapahandi Branch with ATM card facility. On 1.4.2009 the complainant withdrawn Rs.10,000/- through his A.T.M. card at around 11.44 A.M. and thereafter taken decoding mode in use of same A.T.M. for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- in second occasion by 11.45 A.M. which reveals on the body of both the customer’s slip. The ATM service centre was S.B.I. Digapahandi but it is very unfortunate that the withdrawal failed with remark as “sorry unable to process”. This complainant informed the inevitable matter and his urgent need of deposited money on 3.4.2009 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank, Digapahandi in a written complaint who made enquire about the same and reported to his Circle Office, Bhubaneswar over phone and later on assured the complainant herein to wait for 45 days as mailed his correspondence to Bhubaneswar circle and Bangalore Head Office for settle of the dispute in question. The concerned Branch Manager suggested this complaint to place the grievances at Bhubaneswar Circle Office, while approached his demand for money as urgent need to meet the medical expenses for specialized treatment of his son at Hyderabad who lost his vision and a student of Class X to appear examination. The complainant made correspondence with the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar by registered post and obtained a postal money receipt dated 16.6.2009 on expiration of the assurance period of O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.2 sent an official letter vide Ref. BCO MIPD & PP 269/2009/PKT dated 3rd July 2009 in reply of complainant’s redress. The subject matter of the same set of facts is admitted one that further assurance simply. However, this complainant made visit to Bhubaneswar Circle Office and Digapahandi Branch frequently for follow up action about his deposited money in an unbecoming, unaccounted laying elsewhere. On 5.9.2009 at about 4-8 P.M. his advocate made contact over phone No. 06742392621 with Manager, Circle Office, Bhubaneswar, who expressed his inability and advised to keep contact with technical Branch without sensing the serious situation of his legitimate claims, which amounts a hotchpotch answering of both the O.Ps thus never mind for the matter of the affected party. The complainant has made all up-to-date balance in the said S.B. account and the rest balance remained Rs.1,500/- only leaving the said disputed amount Rs.10,000/- only vide dated 2.4.2009. More fully, the amount in question remained in the hand of O.Ps in the laying manner without interest gaining thereon. There is a strict guideline of R.B.I. and the Govt. policy under gazette Notification to all Banks about any default in such occasion of ATM shall be liable to pay the daily fine of Rs.100/- till payment of the amount in question. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the liabilities as compensation with cost of the litigation.
3. Upon notice the O.P. No. 1& 2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated in the written version / argument that the complainant is an account holder of the O.P. Bank and has been availing the ATM card facilities smoothly for a long time without any blemish. The complainant exhausted three transactions on 1.4.09 vide transaction Nos. 4600, 4601 and 4610, out of which he has produced transaction slip 4601 before the O.P.No.1 Bank at the time of giving complaint on 3.4.09. So on enquiry it was found that it was valid transaction. Thus, as per the complaint of the complainant, the Central Office Authorities i.e. the O.P.No.2 asked the complainant to produce any other transaction slip to substantiate his claim vide their L.N. BBS/Co/MIPD7PP Comp/393/2009 dated 8.9.2009, which the complainant received and remained silent and did not comply the said letter. So to verify the genuineness of the claim, the O.Ps have to examine from pillar to post all the transactions made through all the transactions made through all ATM counters situated at Digapahandi vide the account number of the complainant. So it has become very difficult on the part of the O.Ps to exhaust all such procedures, so there has been a little delay in settling the claim of the complainant. But such delay is not due to any lapses on the part of the O.Ps, but due to non-compliance of the letter of the O.P.No.2. Hence, this O.Ps shall not be blamed for any deficiency in service for the lapses on the part of the complainant himself. Probably due to some machinery problem (accidental) in the SBI ATM, the instant trouble arose, which is not intentional nor the O.P. Bank is benefited out of such trouble happened to the complainant. Rather the O.P. Bank faced lots of problems and inconvenience due to twice inquiry being made first on Annexure B and thereafter also due to thorough enquiry and checking by the technical experts of the concerned bank. All the formalities are to be observed to settle a claim because the O.P. Bank are dealing with a large quantity of public money and often there are threats of some false claims. As a good gesture, however, the O.P.No.1 and 2 helped the complainant and obtained information on particulars of ATM transaction and forwarded them immediately to the appropriate quarter for ascertaining the genuineness of the claim and for early settlement of the claim. The O.Ps also used to pursue the matter, whenever there is unreasonable delay at any level. In the instant case the complainant made his transaction at the SBI ATM counter, Digapahandi. So State Bank of India is a necessary party in the above case and the concerned authorities of State Bank of India can explain briefly the delay occurred in the above transaction. So the O.Ps 1 & 2 absolutely have no role to play besides pursuing the matter before the appropriate authorities. In the above facts and circumstances, the O.P.No.1& 2 having neither role to play nor any authority in the claim settlement and considering the settlement already made by re-crediting and disputed transaction amount in the complainant’s account, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be kind enough to dismiss the case.
4. On the date of final hearing we heard the matter from the learned counsel for the complainant as well as from the learned counsel for the O.Ps. We have also gone through the complaint and written arguments filed by parties. We have also verified the vital correspondences/ documents placed in the case record and perused the pleadings of the parties.
During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 1.4.2009 when the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- it was failed with a message “sorry unable to process” and wrongly deducted the said amount from his savings bank account bearing No.11103. The complainant redressed his grievance before the O.Ps repeatedly and the O.P. No.2 in his letter bearing No.BCO MIPD & PP 269 /2009 /PKT dated 3rd July 2009 assured the complainant to credit the amount to his account very shortly. However, the O.Ps failed to credit the amount even after elapse of 5 months and finally the complainant preferred to file a consumer complaint on 07.09.2009 with a prayer to refund the amount and pay Rs.100/- per day as fine till credit of the amount in question to the account of the complainant in view of the notification made by the Reserve Bank of India for reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMs along with cost of litigation in the interest of justice.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.Ps contended that the complainant exhausted three transactions on 1.4.2009 vide transaction No.4600, 4601 & 4610 out of which he has produced transaction slip No.4601 before the O.P.No.1 and on enquiry it was found that it was a valid transaction. He also contended that as per the complain of the complainant the O.P. No.2 asked the complainant to produce any other transaction slip to substantiate his claim vide his letter No.BBS/Co/MIPD &PP Comp/393/2009 dated 8.9.2009, which the complainant received and remained silent and did not comply the said letter. The learned counsel for the O.Ps also argued that on direction of the O.P.No.2, the O.P.No.1 credited the amount of Rs.10,000/- immediately to the account of the complainant and intimated the matter to him personally and there has been a little delay in settling the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps since the delay is not due to any lapses on the part of the O.Ps but due to non-compliance of the letter of O.P.No.2 by the complainant. So, the O.Ps shall not be blamed for any deficiency in service for the lapses on part of the complainant himself. He has also contended that in this case the complainant made his transactions through SBI counter Digapahandi so State Bank of India is a necessary party since the concerned authorities of State Bank of India can explain the delay occurred in the above transaction and the O.P. No.1 &2 have absolutely no role to play besides pursing the matter before the appropriate authorities. The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant has not impleded State Bank of India as a party hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may kindly dismiss the case against the O.P. No.1&2 with cost.
5. We perused the above pleadings of both learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the O.Ps. From the above pleadings it appears that there was failure of ATM transaction on 1.4.2009 when the complainant was trying to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his savings bank account. It is also a fact that the complainant on 3.4.2009 informed the said matter to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Digapahandi in a written complaint and the matter was also intimated by the complainant to O.P. No.2 on 16.06.2009 in a written letter which is also not denied or disputed since the matter was followed up by the O.P. No.2 as is evident from his reply letter No.BCO MIPD & PP 269/2009/ PKT dated 3rd July 2009 and No BBS CO: MIPD&PP:COMP:393:2009 dated 8th September 2009 respectively. However, as admitted the learned counsel for the complainant, the matter was finally settled on 10.10.2009 by the O.Ps by recrediting a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the bank account of the complainant. On perusal of the documents it is found that the reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMs was done by the O.Ps after elapse of 6 months by making recredit of the amount to the savings bank account of complainant on 10.10.2009. It is beyond doubt and clearly found that the O.Ps took 6 months time period for reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMs. In our considered view, it is certainly a matter of deficiency in service and negligence on part of the O.Ps since despite several approaches made by the complainant and even after receipt of notice from this Forum, the O.Ps failed to make reconciliation of the matter within stipulated time as notified by the Reserve Bank of India. As per the notification of Reserve Bank of India(RBI) vide No.RBI/2010/11/547 DPSS.PD.No.2632/ 02.10.002/2010-2011 dated 27th May 20011, the Banks shall recredit the customer’s account within 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint in case of failed transactions at ATMs. The relevant portion of the notification of RBI is extracted below for useful reference:
2(a) The time limit for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing banks shall stand reduced from 12 working days to 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Accordingly, failure to recredit the customer’s account within 7 working days of receipt of the complaint shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank.
(b) Any customer is entitled to receive such compensation for delay, only if a claim is lodged with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of the transaction.
From the above resolution it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are bound to recredit the customer’s account within 7 working days of receipt of the complaint in case of failed transactions at ATMs else the complaint shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day if a claim is lodged with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of transaction. In the instant case, the complainant lodged his claim before the O.P. No.1 on 3.4.2009 and also intimated the matter to O.P. No.2 on 16.06.2009 when the O.P. No.1 did not take any satisfactory action to recredit the amount to the complainant’s account. However, the O.Ps recredited the amount on 10.10.2009 only after filing of this consumer complaint on 07.09.2009. This proves the deficiency in service and negligent attitude of O.Ps towards the complainant and the aforesaid RBI notification for reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMs also could not help as it was ignored by the O.Ps. Hence, in our considered view, the O.Ps are deficient in service for not making reconciliation of failed transactions of complainant’s account within stipulated period as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India discussed above. Since, the O.Ps are deficient in service, therefore, they are jointly liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the harassment and negligence caused to the consumer.
As far as the issue of compensation is concerned, we would like to say that it is undisputed that the O.Ps have caused a delay of six months to settle the matter of the complainant and for this long period we are not inclined to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation to the complainant @ Rs.100/- per day as per the above notification of RBI, since it is against the judicial principle of ‘doctrine of unlawful enrichment’. However, we also can’t ignore the negligence caused to the complainant by the O.Ps despite the standing notification of RBI to make reconciliation in case of failed transactions at ATMs within stipulated time period. Considering the present fact and circumstance of the case and in view of the standing notification of RBI, we decided to award Rs.2,000/- as exemplary token compensation to be paid by the O.Ps jointly to the complainant to compensate his loss. At the same time we also decided to allow a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation, since the complainant has hired the services of an advocate to file his case in this Forum when the O.Ps failed to make settlement of his complaint.
6. In the result, we allow the case of the complainant against the O.Ps and the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation along with a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation. The aforesaid amount to be paid by the O.Ps within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount from the O.Ps under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed off accordingly.
7. The order is pronounced on this 25th day of April 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to issue copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
