This revision petition has been filed by Mrs. Jasmine W. Surendra (a senior citizen), who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (District Forum for short), against the order dated 4^th of March, 2010 of the Chennai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission has reversed the District Forum’s order dated 30^th of December, 2008 whereby it had allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent/opposite party/Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner/complainant besides Rs.3000/- as cost of the litigation. 

In her memo of revision petition, the complainant has submitted that she would not be able to travel to Delhi for the hearing of her petition due to her advanced age and ill-health and has requested that the petition be decided on the basis of records.  However, in the interest of justice, this Commission appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the Commission on behalf of the complainant.

The facts in brief, as borne out from the records are that the complainant/petitioner was holding an ATM-cum-Debit Card issued by the respondent/opposite party/Bank.  Despite availability of sufficient funds in her account, when she along with her husband went for shopping at Mumbai and tried to make the payment by using the said ATM card, the same was reported to be inoperative, resulting in unwarranted embarrassment and humiliation to them at the shopping center in the presence of other shoppers.  She returned to Chennai thereafter with the injured self-esteem.  In Chennai too, when on the 27^th of May, 2005 she attempted to withdraw some cash from the Bank’s ATM kiosk located in the Branch premises, the machine reflected zero balance even though she had balance of Rs.82,292.67 in her account.  The matter was taken up with the higher authorities of the Bank and the Divisional Manager vide his reply dated 31^st August, 2005 informed her that the matter has been taken up with the centralized office at Bangalore but no information with regard to the outcome of any inquiry was communicated.  Besides, the complainant also faced repeated unpleasant treatment in the hands of the officials of the opposite party/Bank in her dealing for the withdrawal of cash from her account.  Despite being a senior citizen, she was made to stand in the queue and was not tendered the appropriate denomination of currency notes, causing great inconvenience in the form of counting the bundles of the notes given to her.  To top it all, the Bank officials on another occasion (31^st of January, 2007) falsely alleged that she has taken away the token issued to her.  Further, when the opposite party/Bank was approached by the complainant’s husband for the issue of two demand drafts on 20^th of March, 2007, he was directed to come again at 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon for collecting the drafts. 

The series of incidents caused tremendous harassment resulting in dissatisfaction of the service rendered by the Bank and, therefore, the complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party/Bank, claiming a compensation of Rs.19.03 Lakhs on various counts.  The District Forum on consideration of submissions made by both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/bank in the manner indicated above.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of District Forum, the opposite party/Bank filed an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed a reversal order, thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioner/complainant. 

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal filed by the opposite party/Bank nullifying the order passed by the District Forum in her favour, the complainant has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully.

Learned Amicus Curiae assisting the Commission on behalf of the petitioner/complainant has submitted that the District Forum, on a proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence before it, had very correctly held that there was deficiency in service by the opposite party/Bank at least with regard to the failure of the debit card to honour the purchase while being swiped at a shop in Mumbai and subsequently reflecting a ‘zero’ balance at the ATM at Chennai despite the fact that the complainant had Rs.82,292.67 in her account.  Besides, the Manager of the opposite party/Bank had referred the matter to their Head Office at Bangalore for getting the matter enquired into as to whether there was any technical defect.  Even though the other allegations of the complainant were also correct, the District Forum without any basis has held that they have not been proved and awarded a meager amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  The counsel, therefore, submits that the quantum of compensation needs to be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party/Bank on the other hand has justified the order passed by the State Commission.  He has contended that the debit card may not have worked at the point of transaction for many reasons and there is no evidence/bill of any purchase and it cannot be said with certainty if the shop had the appropriate machine to swipe the debit card.  Even for the withdrawal of the cash from the ATM, it is not certain as to whether the complainant had fed the proper ‘PIN’ etc.  The learned counsel, therefore, contends that the order passed by the State Commission, being a fully reasoned order, needs no interference at the stage of revision.

Having considered the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we cannot but observe that the State Commission has failed to consider the incident and evidence in its correct perspective.  It is admitted by the opposite party/Bank at the level of Senior Manager that “This was purely due to technical reason that the card has not worked during that particular time”.  The complainant was also rendered apology for the inconvenience caused to her and the matter was referred for a technical investigation, about which the opposite party/Bank maintained complete silence.  Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party/Bank even before us has not been able to state as to what was the outcome of such an investigation.  While on behalf of the complainant, it has been stated that the opposite party/Bank after having withdrawn the ATM card had issued a common debit card for both the complainant and her husband giving a common PIN code, even though they operated separate bank accounts.  Obviously it was not possible for one debit card with one common PIN code to operate different savings account of two different individuals.  This fundamental error appears to have been overlooked by the technical department of the opposite party/Bank.  The District Forum, therefore, had very correctly held that on this count at least the opposite party/Bank has to be held deficient.

Insofar as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant for higher compensation is concerned, we find that the Senior Manager having expressed his sincere apology for the inconvenience that may have been caused, we feel that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- as awarded by the District Forum in the facts and circumstances would meet the ends of justice. 

The revision petition, accordingly, is accepted, restoring the order of the District Forum.  The respondent/opposite party/Bank is directed to remit the amount as awarded by the District Forum to the petitioner/complainant within a period of four weeks, failing which it will attract interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment.