Delhi

North East

CC/123/2021

Ms. Leena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 123/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Ms. Leena W/o Sh. Subhash Chand, R/o Jhuggi No. E-57/A-287, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-93	Complainant
	Versus
	Central Bank of India, Ghonda, Maujpur, Delhi-110053 Through its Branch Manager	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

15.09.21 02.02.23 24.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant have a saving account bearing no. 3696036307 in Opposite Party bank. On 20.02.20, Complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- by Mahila Sewa Urban Cooperative Thrift and credit Society Limited and it was deposited/transferred in her aforesaid saving account in opposite party bank. On 22.02.20, Complainant came to know that in period from 20.02.20 till 21.02.20, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- had been withdrawn from her account while she had not withdrawn the said amount. Immediately she closed her ATM facility and approached the officials of Opposite Party and brought said facts into their knowledge. The Complainant stated that on 27.02.20 Complainant lodged complaint in cyber cell and the said police complaint was handed over to officials of Opposite Party on 29.02.20. The Complainant stated that when Opposite Party bank failed to remove grievance, then Complainant again lodged a written complaint to Opposite Party on 03.03.20. The Complainant stated after verification of grievance of said complaint, Opposite Party bank refunded amount of Rs. 60,000/- in the saving account of Complainant on 22.09.20. The Complainant alleged that the she could not withdraw the said amount from her account and Opposite Party failed to give any sufficient reason as to why the Complainant was not allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 60,000/- from her account. The Complainant sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 19.07.21 and then Opposite Party served a false and frivolous reply to Complainant. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to allow the Complainant to withdraw her amount of Rs. 60,000/- from her said account and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment. She further prayed for Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.

 Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party admitted that on 22.02.2020, the Complainant blocked the ATM as soon as fraudulent transaction came into her knowledge and visited branch on 29.02.2020 with written complaint which she had already lodged on customer care centre of the Opposite Party bank. It is also admitted that the Complainant submitted all the documents along with the copy of police complaint with diary entry at the branch on 03.03.2020. It is contended by the Opposite Party that the FIR copy was not submitted to the bank which is required for the settlement of the claim. It is submitted that as per the result of the investigation conducted by the Opposite Party, the amount of Rs. 60,000/- was credited to the Complainant’s account under shadow limit i.e. subject to clearance of certain conditions. It is further submitted that for the removal of those conditions, ATM FRMC dept. needs a copy of FIR as per the RBI guidelines. It is also submitted that Opposite Party is in regular touch with the dept for the clearance of hold on saving account of the Complainant and Opposite Party has also written to the operation dept in this regards. It is alleged that the Complainant has not provided the copy of FIR to the Opposite Party, hence, failed to fulfil all necessary action within time provided by the RBI circular which caused delay to clear hold. Thus the complaint is liable to be rejected.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party  wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party  and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. Prakash Kumar, Chief Manager and AR of Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused material on record.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant faced an incident of ATM fraud for total amount of Rs. 60,000/- and she immediately informed the Opposite Party and blocked the ATM. She also lodged a Police complaint in cyber cell. After conducting investigation, the Opposite Party found the complaint genuine and credited the amount of Rs.60,000/- to the account of the Complainant under shadow limit i.e. subject to clearance of certain conditions. The Complainant has alleged that her account is on hold and she is not able to withdraw the said amount. It is alleged that the Opposite Party has put her account on hold without giving any sufficient reason. While the case of the Opposite Party is that since the amount has been issued under shadow limit, the withdrawal is subject to clearance of certain conditions by the RBI. It is alleged that the Complainant has not provided the copy of FIR to the Opposite Party, hence failed to fulfil all necessary action within time provided by the RBI circular which caused delay to clear hold.
8. The perusal of material on record shows that it is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party, after conducting the investigation, issued the refund to the Complainant and the withdrawal of the said amount was subject to the clearance of certain conditions. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has not provided the copy of FIR to the Opposite Party, hence failed to fulfil all necessary action within time provided by the RBI circular which caused delay to clear hold. On the other hand, the Opposite Party submitted that they are in regular touch with the Operation Dept. for the clearance of hold on saving account of the Complainant and Opposite Party has also written to the operation Dept. in this regards. The perusal of the letter dated 23.11.2021 shows that the Opposite Party had taken up the matter after the filing of the present complaint and matter has not been resolved till date. Since, the Police complaint to DCP cyber cell had already been submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, the contention of the Opposite Party that Complainant has not provided the copy of FIR to the Opposite Party as required by RBI circular which caused delay to clear hold, cannot be accepted, more particularly, when the said circular was not in the knowledge of the Complainant as contended by the Complainant. It is to be noted that said contention has not been rebutted by the Opposite Party.
9. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in services to the Complainant by failing to remove the hold on the account of the Complainant and causing mental agony to the Complainant.
10.  Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to release the amount of Rs.60,000/- in favour of the Complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the interest @6% p.a on the said amount from the date of credit i.e.22.09.2020 till payment. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/-as litigation cost. OP is liable to pay the awarded amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks OP will be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. for the delayed period.

 

11. Order announced on 24.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President