DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.9 of 2020
Dr. Debi Prasad Mahapatra, S/o. Prafulla Chandra Mahapatra, aged about 54 years, R/o. Baiganjuri, P.O. S.Kalapathar, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sonepur Main Branch, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur
………….. Opp. Party
Advocate for the Complainant …………. None
Advocate for the O.P. …………. Sri G.S. Panda
Present
1. Sri U.N.Purohit, President
2. Sri H.Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.02.06.2020
Date of Hearing Dt.22.11.2022
Date of Order Dt.30.11.2022
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
The complainant files complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. Chief Manager, S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur.
Brief fact of the complainant is that he is an account holder of S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur having A/c. No.11682359777. On 22.06.2019 the complainant had been to ATM located near S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur – ATM ID SIBW001085018 to check mini statement of his S.B. Account as mentioned above through his ATM Card No.5103720323656627 at about 8.30 P.M. Due to system failure after a while the complainant received 2(two) messages at 8.30 PM and 9.08 PM in his Mobile No.9438218880 and came to know that Rs.10,000/- is debited twice from his account. On 24.06.2019 the complainant lodged a complaint to Chief Manager, S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur to reverse the erroneous transaction immediately explaining the details. On 10.07.2019 the complainant send reminder to Chief Manager, S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur to look after the matter immediately but the Bank paid no
-: 2 :-
heed to all his complaint and the complainant filed a case before Banking OMBUDSMAN Bhubaneswar on 24.07.2019 separately. Served pleader notice on 16.08.2019. After delay of more than 5 months S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur had issued one Banker cheque bearing No.457880 for Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which was duly credited to the S.B. A/c. of the complainant on 08.11.2019. The Bank has not yet credited the litigation charges, compensation and harassment, mental agony and penalty as per RBI guide lines to Bank of Rs.100/- per day from the date of debit to date of reversal, for delay in reversal of erroneous debit later then the Turn Around Time (TAT) beyond 5 days vide Circular No.DPSS PD No.2632/210002/2010/11 May 27th 2011.
On 09.12.2019 the complainant submitted a letter to Chief Manager S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur to pay litigation charges penalty and compensation but till date the complaint of the complainant remains unattended. For the negligence act of the O.Ps. the complainant has suffered loss and injury by deprivation from his rights, harassment and mental agony for which he is entitled to compensation.
The O.P. liable for breach of contract as it has not complaint with the term of the Banker customer relationship and have acted extremely negligently in attending the complaint of the complainant and is liable to compensate the loss and injury caused to him. The cause of action arose on 22.06.2019 when the complainant seek mini statement through SBI ATM and further cause of action arose on when the Bank reverse the amount by cheque No.457880 of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant claims Rs.4000/- as litigation charges, Rs.10,000/- compensation for harassment and mental agony, penalty to reversal beyond TAT @ Rs.100/- per day from 22.06.2019 to upto date i.e. till date of filing Rs.44,800/- and other relief.
The case of O.P. is that the O.P. admitted the complainant is an account holder and denied to have any knowledge about mini statement receiving by O.P. in his mobile Number. The complainant required to prove by producing oral evidence. The O.P. admitted about system failure and deducted Rs.10,000/- twice
-: 3 :-
from the account of the complainant for unsuccessful transaction at SBI ATM is guided by the SOP by SBI the entire procedure to reverse the disputed transaction is guided SOP. In the instant transaction took place the complainant lodged complaint to B.M. in prescribed form on 17.07.2019 LHO received on 27.08.2019 and after due examination of the application form it was found that customer has not lodged a police complaint regarding the disputed transaction as required under SOP. The O.P. was advised by LHO to obtain the copy of police complaint for the purpose, accordingly the complainant was advised by the O.P. Xerox copy of FIR made to police was submitted by the complainant to the O.P. on 06.09.2019 and the same was deposited to O.P. on 10.09.2019 forwarded to the LHO on the same day. On completion of formalities and after due examination by the committee and by the order of LHO the O.P. reverse the claim amount to the complainant on 31.10.2019. Hence the formalities required by the SOP for consideration of complaint of the complainant and consideration of restore claim amount began from 06.09.2019. As per the SOP the date of complaint by the complainant is 06.09.2019 i.e. the date of filing FIR to the PS. The O.P. denied of delay of more than 5 months to restore the claim amount. The O.P. had issued a banker cheque No.457880 for Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and the same was credited to S.B. A/c. of the complainant on 08.11.2019. The O.P. denied to applicability of the RBI guide lines as claimed by the complainant, they claims, they are guided by the frame work of SOP for customer unsuccessful transaction at SBI ATM. There is no negligence act of O.P. for which the complainant has no loss, injury mental agony and harassment. Moreover the O.P. has followed the SOP and return the amount to the complainant within time prescribed in SOP –
As per customer protection – Limiting liability of customers in unauthorized electronic banking transaction, bank to resolve the complaint and establish liability of the customer, if any within time specified. | No exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of complaint and to pay compensation to the customer. |
the O.Ps. claims the petition of the complainant is baseless and frivolous. The O.P. has restored the amount within the stipulated time as per SOP hence there is no
-: 4 :-
negligence on the part of the O.P., they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The O.P. dispute cause of action as the complainant did not reported the matter before the police and did not submitted the copy of FIR to the SBI till 10.09.2019. As per SOP the completion of formalities is required or initiation of the proposal and examination of the complaint, hence it is wrong to say the cause of action arose on 22.06.2019 and 08.11.2019 the real cause of action is on 10.09.2019. The dispute regarding the customer Bank is to reserve by Bank’s Ombudsmen, and this commission has no jurisdiction to trial this case. As the prayer made by the complainant which baseless and frivolous the complaint deserved to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
On going through the complaint petition and claim of O.P. the O.P. admitted the system failure and deducted twice of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant, the O.P. admitted the transaction dt.22.06.2019 and lodging of complaint by the complainant on 17.07.2019. The O.P. admitted about reversal of the amount through Banker cheque of Rs.20,000/- on 08.11.2019 they only disputed about the application of RBI guide line and the O.P. claims RBI guide line is not applicable to them and the SBI is guided by SOP of SBI & cause of action for the reversal of amount. In this back ground the only question is require to decide :
i). Whether the O.P. is binding on the guide line issued by RBI ?
ii). Whether the SOP issued by SBI override the guide line of RBI ?
iii). Whether the cause of action arose on 22.06.2019 or 10.09.2019 ?
iv). Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief ?
Question No.(i) Whether the O.P. is binding on the guide line issued by RBI ?
The RBI being the Central Bank established under RBI Act 1935 to regulate – issue of Bank Notes and keeping of reserve with a view to securing monetary stability in India and generally to operate the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage to have modern monetary policies frame work to meet the charge of a increasingly complex economy to maintaining price stability well keeping in mind the object of growth.
-: 5 :-
The RBI perform the supervisory function, supervise financial sector comprising scheduled Commercial Bank and Corporate Bank of India, Financial Institutions local area banks, Credit information companies, Information banking financial companies etc. The function of the RBI is supervisory and regulatory authorities in such capacity frame work, the policies and regulate all the financed Bank and had administered other acts passed by the Parliament including SBI. The SBI is regulated by the regulatory authority RBI as such any policies formed by SBI which is contrary to the regulation/direction/ notification issued by RBI is contrary to law of nation. So the answering of the question is that the O.P. is binding on the guideline issued by RBI and any SOP if any which is contrary to the guide line of the RBI guideline will not operate as legal document, so the claim of O.P. is not sustainable and the answer to question No.1 is that the O.P. is binding on the guideline issued by the RBI.
Question No. ii). Whether the SOP issued by SBI override the guide line of RBI ?
The O.P. in his version at para 8 referred the SOP but the O.P. has not filed any such document in this regard. The pleading shows like this
As per customer protection – Limiting liability of customers in unauthorized electronic banking transaction, bank to resolve the complaint and establish liability of the customer, if any within time specified. | No exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of complaint and to pay compensation to the customer. |
but no such document available on record filed by O.P.
On the other hand the complainant in evidence filed by Affidavit referred the RBI circular No.DPSS-PD-NO-2633/02.10.2010-11 May 2011 the copy of the said document also filed by the complainant which shows that in para 2(a) the time limit for resolution for customer complaint by the issuing bank shall stand reduce from 12 working days to 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Accordingly failure to credit the customer’s account within 7 working days of receipt of complaint shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank. So the O.P. claiming of applicability of SOP
-: 6 :-
for the ATM failure case 90 days from the receipt the complaint is contrary to the RBI guide line, even if any SOP which will not override the guidelines issued by the RBI. Answer to this question accordingly.
Question No.(iii) & (iv) :
On going through the complaint petition, evidence in affidavit, filed by the complainant alongwith supporting document Annexure 1 to 12 as well as the version of O.P. it is found that the complainant has visited the ATM for Mini statement on 22.06.2019 which is admitted by the O.P. in para 4 of his version and the complainant has filed the screen shot of the message which discloses that on 22.06.2019 at about 8.30 P.M. an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been deducted twice vide transaction No.TXN # 5834 and TXN # 5835.
The complainant has lodged complaint to the Chief Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Sonepur on 24.06.2019 detailing of all events to reverse erroneous transaction which is supported by the document dt.24.06.2019 received by the Chief Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Sonepur. Further as the O.P. did not take any action the complainant again given one reminder on 10.07.2019 to the Chief Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Sonepur which is also received by the Chief Manager, SBI, Main Branch, Sonepur putting his signature on the documents. Thereafter as the O.P. remain silent the complainant lodged complaint before Banking Ombudsmen on 24.07.2019 and issued pleader notice to the O.P. which also supported by the copy of the document received by the banking authority on 17.07.2019. The O.P. instead of solving the problem having sufficient knowledge and documents of failure of ATM transaction issued one letter directing the complainant to lodged FIR against ATM fraud. The O.P. being the banking authority well aware about the guide line issued by the RBI to avoid the liability has issued such direction to the complainant in the name of SOP Though there is master circular of RBI in this regard.
The time limit for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing banks shall stand reduce from 12 working days to 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Accordingly, failure to recredit the customer’s account
-: 7 :-
within 7 working days of receipt of the complaint shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank. This compensation shall be credited to the customer’s account automatically without any claim from the customer, on the same day when the bank affords the credit for the failed ATM transaction.
In the master circular there is no provision of any FIR by the customer it is the duty of the customer to intimate immediate banking authority within 7 days and it is the duty of the bank sou moto take action to credit the amount within Turn Around Time (TAT) as the guideline issued by the RBI. The RBI guide line relating to customer protection limitation liability of customer in unauthorized electronic banking transaction issued on July 6th 2017. So far unauthorized electronic banking transaction is concerned the burden of prove lies with the bank and it is cleared in the letter that customer is until to inform the Bank about any unauthorized electronic banking transaction or any fraud and there is no such provision in para 5 of the letter that the customer is to lodged FIR against such transaction before the Police. It is the look out of the banking authority. The version filed by the O.P. claiming that as per SOP the complainant is required to supply the copy of FIR at the time of complaint as per their SOP is not tenable but it is misguided by the O.P. against the guideline of RBI. As per the guideline of RBI the cause of action arose when the complainant reported to the Bank about ATM failure, so the cause of action arose on 22.06.2019.
As per guideline of the RBI issued on Sept 20th 2019 - RBI/2019-20/67 DPSS.CO.PD No.629/02.01.2014/2019-20 -
“ 5. Wherever financial compensation is involved, the same shall be effected to the customer’s account suo moto, without waiting for a complaint or claim from the customer.
6. Customers who do not get the benefit of redress of the failure as defined in the TAT, can register a complaint with the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 ( as amended from time to time)
7. This directive is issued under Section 10(2) read with Section 18 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (Act 51 of 2007) and shall come into effect from October 15, 2019. ”
-: 8 :-
In Annexure –
“At Para 2 - A ‘failed transaction’ is a transaction which has not been fully completed due to any reason not attributable to the customer such as failure in communication links, non-availability of cash in an ATM, time out of sessions, etc. Failed transactions shall also include the credits which could not be effected to the beneficiary account on account of lack of full information or lack of proper information and delay in initiating a reversal transaction. “
Table 1(a) -
1. | Automated teller Machines (ATMs) including Micro-ATMs |
A | Customer’s account debited but cash not dispensed. | Pro-active reversal® of failed transaction within a maximum of T + 5 days | Rs.100/- per day of delay beyond T + 5 days, to the credit of the account holder. |
Going through all the documents, evidence, we are found that the O.P. is in deficient in providing proper service not crediting the amount in time to the complainant inspite of proper intimation. So the O.P. is liable to pay compensation the complainant as per guide line of RBI TAT @ Rs.100/- per day to the complainant from the date of deduction of the amount from the account to the date of reversed the payment i.e. 22.06.2019 to 8.11.2019 – 4 Months 16 days.
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.13600/- to the complainant as per guide line of RBI TAT @ Rs.100/- per day. The complainant is also entitled for compensation U/s.39 of C.P. Act towards harassment cause to the complainant and for mental agony which a sum of Rs.10,000/- will meet the compensation and Rs.4000/- towards the cost of litigation. The O.P. is directed to pay in total Rs.27,400/- to the complainant within two months. Complaint is partly allowed. This order be comply within Two month from the date of order failing which the penal interest of 10% will be charged till realization of award amount.
-: 9 :-
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 30th day of November 2022
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.30.11.2022 Dt.30.11.2022
