Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/629/2015

Mukesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gagandeep Goel

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/629/2015
Date of Institution	:	18/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	27/07/2016

 

 

Mukesh Sharma s/o Sh. Sukhdev Sharma r/o Sharma Niwas, Above CM Mega Bazaar, Kather Bypass, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, Pin 173213.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Canara Bank through its Authorised Representative, Head Office, Plot No.1, Dakshin Marg, Sub. City Centre, Sector 34, Chandigarh 160022.

2.     Branch Manager, Canara Bank, SCF No.29, Sector 19-D, Sarovar Path, Chandigarh 160019.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gagandeep Goel, Counsel for the complainant
	:	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Mukesh Sharma, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Canara Bank and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs) for directing the OPs to credit an amount of Rs.50,000/- to his saving bank account and also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by him, Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation and also for imposing exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the OPs. 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is holding a saving bank account No.2479101005500 with Canara Bank, Sector 19 Branch, Chandigarh. On his visit to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi the complainant swiped his debit card for a transaction of Rs.50,000/- at around 7:15 p.m. after which the said amount was deducted/debited from the account but the same was not credited in the account of the beneficiary i.e. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.  When the complainant called the customer care, he was told that the amount shall be credited back to his account within a maximum period of 7 days. Subsequently the complainant submitted a written complaint/request dated 31.8.2015 to the Sector 19 Branch of the bank followed by emails dated 7.9.2015 to the Chief Vigilance Officer of Canara Bank and 9.9.2015 to the Nodal Officer of Reserve Bank of India, but, to no avail.  Hence, this complaint claiming the reliefs mentioned above.

2.         The OPs resisted the claim of the complainant, inter alia taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint has been framed and filed in utter disregard and violation of the Consumer Protection Act and Rules, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed; there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice made out against the OPs. It is alleged that the transaction of Rs.50,000/- was made through debit card at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as such no part of cause of action  has occurred at Chandigarh; the complaint has been filed without disclosing any cause of action against the OPs and without impleading the Mastercard as a party in the complaint which is a necessary party to decide the present controversy;  the complainant does not come under the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, the OPs pleaded that on 28.8.2015 on account of use of debit card at swipe machine the complainant’s account was debited for Rs.50,000/-.  However, the said amount was not credited into the account of the beneficiary due to some technical issue in Core Banking Solution in which the OPs have no role because the services of debit card are given by Mastercard.  It is alleged that as per the Mastercard guidelines, the reconciliation of failure transaction will take 14 days in normal course. But due to some technical issue in CBS (Core Banking Solution) file processing, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was credited back into the account of the complainant on 19.9.2015 i.e. after 22 days and the delay of 8 days in refund of the amount beyond the time frame fixed was neither intentional nor deliberate.  Denying that the complainant was made to visit again and again to their office for rectification of the transaction in question, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5.         The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has to suffer mental agony as the amount of Rs.50,000/- debited from the account of the complainant was not credited in the account of the beneficiary i.e. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He further argued that the OP bank remained deficient in services as the said amount was not debited in the saving bank account of the complainant immediately even after making of complaint by him. 
6.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs argued that the OP bank has no liability to transfer the said amount in the account of the beneficiary i.e. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.  Due to some technical problem the said amount of Rs.50,000/- could not be credited in the saving account of said Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. As per their guidelines, the amount was to be credited in the account of the complainant within 14 days but due to some technical issue in the Core Banking Solution (CBS) the said amount could not be credited back into the account of the complainant. However, the said amount was ultimately credited in the account of the complainant on 19.9.2015 after 22 days and there is only delay of 8 days which is not intentional. He argued that the complainant instead of waiting for the solution rushed to the Consumer Forum unnecessarily, so the complaint be dismissed.
7.         From the given facts and evidence on record, it is proved that the complainant has his saving bank account in the Canara Bank at Chandigarh Branch and the complainant has also the facility of debit card of debit card company Mastercard. The complainant swiped the card on 28.8.2015 at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant, but, the said amount could not be transferred in the account of the beneficiary i.e. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The said amount was also not credited back to the saving account of the complainant immediately, but, on 19.9.2015 only. 
8.         Though the complainant was having the facility of a debit card, but, that card was issued to the complainant as a facility to operate his bank account. There was no agreement between the complainant and the OP bank that in every situation as and when the debit card is used the complainant would get the money from his account or would be in a position to transfer the money of his account to the account of some other person.  In case there is a failure of any transaction because of the use of debit card, the bank cannot be held responsible. The failure of the transaction by debit card can be due to many reasons e.g. server down, insufficient funds, ATM machine not in working condition etc.  In absence of any contract, the debit card holder has no legal remedy to sue the bank authorities for failure of the debit card transaction.  In the present case, since there was a failure of the debit card transaction, the OP bank cannot be held responsible nor can be made liable to pay the compensation because of failure of the transaction of the debit card. When the debit card was swiped, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant, but, the same could not be transferred to the account of beneficiary.  In such a situation, when the amount could not be transferred to the account of the beneficiary, it was the duty of the bank to credit back that amount in the saving account of the complainant.  No time limit has been specifically provided for crediting back such amount, but, generally the bank cannot sit for a long and is required to credit back the said amount within a reasonable period. Though reasonable period has not been defined anywhere, but the Canara Bank has a grievance redressal policy of 2015-16 as per which, in terms of Reserve Bank of India guidelines, the wrongful debit in the customers account on account of ATM failed transactions shall be reversed within 7 working days from the date of receipt of complaint from the customer, failing which a penalty at Rs.100/- for each day of delay, shall be credited to the customer’s account alongwith the disputed amount.  Any customer is entitled to receive such compensation for delay, if a claim is lodged with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of the transaction.  Since the 7 days period has been provided to credit the amount in ATM failed transactions from the date of complaint, so when the complainant immediately reported the matter to the customer care of the bank, then it was the duty of the OP bank to credit back the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the account of the complainant within 7 days. Even if no complaint is made by the customer then also the bank is under an obligation to credit back the amount of the failed transaction in the account of the debit card holder.  No doubt this is a case where the debit card was swiped and was not used at the ATM machine, but, the functions of swiping a card at any institution or shop as well as using the ATM debit card at ATM machine are the same. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the OP bank was liable to credit back the said amount in the account of the complainant within 7 days failing which the complainant was entitled to the compensation.
9.         Since the OP bank has not credited back the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the saving account of the complainant within 7 days, so the OP bank is deficient in services. The complainant has to suffer because of negligence of the bank as he could not utilize the money till it was credited in his saving account.
10.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances narrated above, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

(i)     To pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to him;

(ii)    To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/07/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President