Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/595

MAHENDRA KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 595 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 13.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.831/2014 by District Commission, Bhopal-2)

 

MAHENDRA KUMAR,

S/O SHRI BHOLARAM,

SHOP NO.3, NEW SABJI MANDI,

BHOPAL-462 001                                                                                        … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

THE MANAGER,

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

13, 1-IQBAL NAGAR,

ASHOKA GARDEN,    

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                           …  RESPONDENT

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Ms. Shivali Singh Parihar, learned counsel for appellant.

           Shri R. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 01.06.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal-2 (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.831/2014 whereby the complaint filed by him against the Central Bank of India has been dismissed.

-2-

2.                The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that the he has an account no.1223412482 with the opposite party-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) having ATM card facility. It is submitted that on 21.09.2013 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited in his account at Chhatarpur. On the very same day i.e. 21.09.2013 at about 3.30pm, when tried to withdraw the said amount through ATM but the amount was not dispensed by the ATM and he received a plain receipt.  He made complaint to the Manager of bank twice but no relief was given. Thereafter he wrote a registered letter to the Finance Minister.  It is submitted by the complainant that he is doing vegetable business and since he did not receive the money, he had to suffer loss. It is submitted that in his account Rs.10,000/- was reversed deposited on 25.09.2013 and the remaining amount was reversed deposited after 25 days. He therefore filed a complaint seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs. 3.             The opposite party -bank in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant did not produce any receipt regarding withdrawal of amount on 21.09.2013. The dispute arose on 21.09.2013 and therefore the complaints made on 24.04.2013 and 25.04.2013 appears to be concocted. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited in the complainant’s account on 21.09.2013 in Central Bank of

-3-

India, Chhatarpur branch. On 21.09.2013 at about 3.30 pm he tried to withdraw the amount from ATM of Indian Overseas Bank situated at Railway Station, Bhopal from where he could not receive the amount and received a plain receipt. The complainant did not withdraw the amount from ATM of Central Bank of India. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in not appreciating the fact that the employees of the bank misbehaved with the appellant and refused to accept the complaint. He submitted that the District Commission has erred in law in not appreciating and considering the RBI regulation through which time limit for resolution of customer compliant has been reduced by the bank within 7 working days failing which the customer is entitled to get compensation of Rs.100/- per day. The complainant has proved his complaint beyond reasonable doubt that the bank has committed deficiency in service which the District Commission has failed to consider.   He argued that grievance of the appellant is genuine and he deserves to get compensation as claimed in the complaint.  He therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside.

 

-4-

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent-bank argued that the complainant did not withdraw the amount from the ATM of Central Bank of India. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited in his account on the same day i.e. 21.09.2013. As per allegation that he tried to withdraw the amount Rs.10,000/- twice i.e. total Rs.20,000/- but the same was not withdrawn. In this regard, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was reversed in his account on 25.09.2013 and another sum of Rs.10,000/- was reversed in his account on 26.10.2013. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as he never made any complaint to the bank in this regard. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. He therefore prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7.                The complainant has filed his affidavit along with certain documents C-1 to C-8 including RBI circular. On behalf of bank an affidavit of Shubhankar Das, Branch Manager has been filed.

8.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant was having bank account with the opposite party bank with ATM facility and when he tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- twice i.e. total Rs.20,000/- from ATM of another bank, the amount was not withdrawn. It is alleged by the complainant that the bank did not deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- in his account on 21.09.2013 due to which the amount withdrawn by him through ATM was not dispensed with.

-5-

9.                From the document C-7 the bank account statement filed by the complainant himself, it is evident that Rs.20,000/- were deposited in his account on 21.09.2013. In the said statement it is also mentioned that he withdrawn Rs.10,000/- twice on the same day from ATM but as per his submission the transaction was not successful. From the said statement, it is also established that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in his account as reversed deposit by way of switch on 25.09.2013 i.e. within 4 days. However, the second amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in his account as reversed deposit by way of switch on 26.10.2013 i.e after 35 days.  This fact was also stated by the complainant in paragraph 6 of his complaint.

10.              The pleadings of the complainant is that if the amount is not reversed within 7 days as per RBI guidelines, he is entitled to get Rs.100/- per day as compensation for delayed reversed deposit in his account. So far as the first amount of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, it was credited in his account within 4 days i.e. on 25.09.2013. So far as the second amount of Rs.10,000/- is concerned admittedly it was credited in his account on 26.10.2013 as is evident from C-1 the bank statement. The only point remained that whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for delayed credit (reversed deposit) of amount in his account or not?

 

-6-

11.              We have gone through the RBI Circular no. RBI/2010/11547 dated May 27, 2011 filed by the complainant as C-1. This circular is related to Reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMS which reads thus:

                   Reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMs.

                       …….

1. …………
   1. 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 entitle payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank.
   2. 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.
   3. …..

 

11.              On bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is made clear that the bank has to resolve the customer complaints regarding failed transaction within 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint failing which the customer is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.100/- per day. Clause 2(b) specifically provided that any customer is entitled to receive compensation for delay only if a claim is lodged with the bank within 30 days from the date of transaction.

12.              From the record, we find that there is no complaint made by complainant regarding failed transaction within a period of 30 days from the date of transaction i.e. 21.09.2013. There is one complaint made to the bank

-7-

and the same was received by the bank on 14.11.2014 i.e. much after 30 days even after the amount of Rs.20,000/- recredited in his account of failed transactions. The complainant has filed complaints made to Finance Minister, Reserve Bank of India etc but that does not help him. So far as the allegation of the complainant that the bank did not receive the complaint is concerned, if that was so, he could have sent the complaint by registered post in the manner he sent the complaints to the Finance Minister, Reserve Bank of India.  Thus, we find that the complainant did not make any complaint to the bank with regard to failed transaction within 30 days, he is not entitled to get any compensation from the bank as per RBI Circular.

13.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, & RBI Circular and has rightly reached to conclusion that the opposite party bank has not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant/appellant failed to prove deficiency in service against the opposite party-bank. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

14.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.      

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Presiding Member                             Member