Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The pith and substance of the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant Ganesh Chandra Roy Karmakar, entrusted the money to the O.P bank Central Bank of India, Cooch Behar branch in his savings account bearing number 1301283604. On 15/09/2022 his balance was Rs.92,085.77/-. On 18/09/2022 Sunday, the Complainant received a message in his mobile that his account was marked lien for Rs. 86,403/-. On the same day on 18/09/2022, Rs.84269/- was debited by the O.P. bank and thereby closing balance reduced to rupees 7816.77. On the next day the complainant wrote a letter to the Bank informing the said incident with the request to reverse the said unauthorised debit. On 21/09/2022, the Complainant received another message that his account was further marked lien for Rs. 2,134/- and Rs. 4,268/-. Thus the O.P. Bank illegally and arbitrary marked lien and set hold of the Complainant’s account for the aforesaid amount and debited Rs.84,269/- from the savings account without any fault of the account holder. The Complainant therefore served a legal notice to OP Bank on 20/09/2022 with a request to lift the lien and to reverse of Rs. 84,269/- to the said account by 27/9/2022. But the OP Bank did not do anything positively. But the aforesaid act on the part of the OP caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for which the Complainant suffered loss and injury. The cause of action for the present case arose on 18/09/2022 and on different dates till the filing of the case. The Complainant prayed for award of Rs. 2,44,269/- as per the prayer of the Complainant.
The OP Central Bank of India, Cooch Behar branch filed written version denying each and every allegation of the Complainant and challenged the case that the Complainant is not a Consumer and the present case is not maintainable. The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that on 18/09/2022 an amount of Rs.86,403/- in the account of the Complainant bearing number 1301283604 was marked lien and on getting such information the OP immediately contacted with the headquarter of the Bank of Mumbai. Thereafter OP found that on 18/09/2022, Rs.86,403/- ,Rs.2,134/-,Rs. 4,268/- and Rs.2,134/- were set on hold due to reason "VISA undebited". Over such issue after thorough verification, the chief manager ATM department central office, Fort Mumbai informed on 12/12/2022 that, “we received Visa debit transaction for the account on 15/09/2022 for Rs.84,269/-. After that we have lodged chargeback on VISA, after receiving the amount, we reversed the amount for Rs. 84,269/-”.
Amount of Rs.86,403/- dated 08/09/2022 and transaction of Rs.2,134/- ,Rs. 8,468/-, Rs. 2,134/- dated 01/09/2022 total Rs.94,939/- were on hold, after receiving charge back the amount of Rs.94,939/- hold removal today. It is pertinent to mention that charged back is a dispute against a particular transaction raised by card holder (end user) and reported to their card issuing Bank. A charge back is a provision by banks and card network such as VISA and MasterCard to protect buyer from authenticated and fraudulent payments. Once the card holder files complaint, the bank reports the same to Razor Pay initiates an investigation if any transaction is being made through VISA debit card. Generally charge back can be associated with unsatisfactory customer service or poor Service delivery experience. Charge back can also be filed if the customer suspects fraudulent activity on their card. A customer has a time frame of 120 days to file a charge back, which means your sales are reversible for the time period. The allegation against the OP is false and concocted. The OP claimed that there is no deficiency in service. The case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The respective pleadings of the parties and the disputes involved in the case led this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as paid for?
- To what other relief if any the complaint is entitle to get?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The OP challenged the status of the Complainant that the Complainant is not a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
The case record shows that the OP through their written version admitted that the Complainant is an account holder of the OP Bank and having account number 1301283604. The disputed transaction dated 18/09/2022 stands also admitted by the OP through Para 9, 10, 11 relates to allegation of the Complainant and the explanation given by the OP. So the disputed transactions are actually admitted to some extent by the OP. Hence the relation between the Complainant and the OP comes well within the purview of the CP Act. Therefore the Complainant is held as consumer under CP act.
The amount of compensation is also well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. Apparently there is nothing within the four corners of the case record to hold that the present case is not maintainable. Therefore point no. 1 is insured affirmative on behalf of the Complainant.
Point No.2 & 3.
The crux of the point is whether the steps on the part of the OP Bank by doing mark lien to the account of the OP bank and charge back on 18/09/2022 for total Rs.86,403/- and further some amount with a total of Rs. 94,939/- was justified or not.
The OP in para 9 of the written version categorically admitted that on 18/09/2022, an amount of Rs. 86,403/- lying in the account of the Complainant was marked lien. The OP further admitted that three transactions dated 01/09/2022 for Rs.2,134/-, 4,268/- and 2,134/- total Rs.94,939/- was set on hold after receiving charge back on the amount of Rs. 94,939/- removed hold removal total.
Ld. advocate for the Complainant argued that the entire activities as a part of the OP was done behind the back of the Complainant.
Money of the Complainant was withheld. Despite filing complaint by the Complainant to the OP, they did not give any reply. After filing of the case the OP returned money. The Complainant however withdrew the money.
The defence plea is that it is charged back. Defence Counsel argued that if there is erroneous transaction the card may be blocked. Further he argued it was not lien, it was set on hold.
The defence argument is not acceptable, as in part 9 of the written version the OP categorically stated inter alia that the account of the Complainant marked lien. However he tried to explain this misleads of the bank on the ground that the entire activities of the marked lien or charge back done by the central branch and local branch no role to play. All the banks work under Central server. The Complainant continued sending mail to the central branch on 22/09/2022, 23/09/2022, 26/09/2022, 27/09/2022, 10/10/2022, 11/10/2022, 25/10/2022 to the debit card department. So, the present case against branch manager is not justified.
After scrutiny it was found that some illegal attempts as a transaction of VISA transaction was made. So it was charged back. In order to secure customer interest his account was set on hold. The Razorpay actually maintain all cards of the all banks. It may take 120 days time to regularise the charged back.
The OP Bank also filed some digital literature over the Regulation and work procedure of Debit Card and function of department.
The digital literature of the banking operation actually does not reduce the allegation of the Complainant or the mental agony filed by the Complainant.
It is fact that the OP Bank refunded the cash to the Complainant which the Complainant received during the lispendence of the case. But that does not reduce the mental pain and agony suffered by the Complainant. After perusal of the case record and the documents filed by the parties, it is found that the Complainant was under mental pressure and agony for such unknown deduction of the money and withholding the account for certain period against which he lodged written complaint on 19/09/2022. Thereafter he also filed legal notice to OP on 20/09/2022.
The OP tried to justify their silence for not replying to the Complainant on the ground that the OP was doing correspondence with the central branch of Mumbai. But that is not a reasonable explanation as now-a-days any untoward transaction as unknown activities into the account of a customer raised a great doubt as to likelihood of a fraudulent act of any fraudster or banking miscreants. So although the bank has returned the money to the Complainant yet mental pain and agony suffered by Complainant for a certain period should be considered to have been caused due to deficiency in service by the OP Bank. So it requires to be compensated by means of some monetary compensation.
The discussion made herein above and observation drawn thereon lead to hold that the Point number 2 and 3 are duly proved.
Accordingly the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the CC case No. CC/52/2022 be and same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The Complainant do get an award for Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony. The OP Bank is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the passing the order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to get an interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded money from the date of passing order till the date of realisation.
DA to note in the Trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
