Delhi

North East

CC/11/2019

Sh. Rajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2020

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. 11/19

 

In the matter of:

	ShriRajan Singh S/o Omprakash R/o  Village KhairpurGujjar, GautamBudh Nagar Uttar Pradesh-201306   Also at: ShriRajan Singh Ward No. 246 East Delhi Municipal Corporation Shahdara North Zone, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Corporation Bank Branch:-F-14, Dilshad Colony Dilshad Garden,Old Seemapuri Road Delhi-110094	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

18.01.2019 06.11.2020 06.11.2020

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President(Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President (Addl. Charge)

 

1. The case of the complainant is that he was maintaining a savings bank account bearing No.046300101042067 with OP w.e.f. 20.05.2004 which continued in operation till October 2017 when during the course of up-gradation by OP bank, the above mentioned account was closed and the balance therein was transferred by OP in a newly opened bank account no. 520101255056636 issued in the name of complainant. The complainant is a cleanliness worker employed with East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) and was receiving his salary in the said account ranging between Rs. 35,000/- to 37,000/-. The complainant had availed of a housing loan from India Bulls Pvt. Ltd. and was paying EMI of Rs. 14,593/- from the account held by him with OP which amount was deducted from his salary and the remaining amount was used by the complainant for his house hold expenses. The complainantwas also issued an ATM cum Debit card in his name by OP. The dispute arose however on 23.09.2018 when the passbook debit entry showed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- debited from complainant’s account under the heading “ATM WDR 24.10.2017 13:51” and Rs. 57/- debited on 29.09.2018 under the head “BY INT FOR THE PERIOD 20.05.2004 TO 30.09.2018”. The complainant had submitted that on 23.09.2018 when the aforesaid amount were debited by OP bank, the complainant only had a balance of Rs. 1041.99/- in his account and the same was converted into a debit of Rs. 14,015/-. For the said transaction / debits, complainant did not receive any SMS alert from OP. Due to the wrongful debit of Rs. 15,027/- made by OP bank, the complainant suffered financial hardship and was unable to meet monthly household expenses and payment of EMI. The complainant had to immediately deposit cash of Rs. 13,000/- in his account to pay the EMI to India Bulls Pvt. Ltd. and was not left with amount sufficient to meet the household expenses or festival celebration. The complainant immediately approached the OP regarding the wrongful debit vide written representation dated 12.10.2018 but not only did OP refuse to acknowledge the same till 17.10.2018 but also took no action in this regard despite complainant having visited it and getting the matter escalated to the Head quarter of OP through email. This inaction on the part of OP forced the complainant to lodge a police complaint with SHO Police Station SeemapuriDilshad Garden, Delhi on 26.11.2018 and two weeks later, his mobile phone which was linked with the bank account held with OP was stolen on 17.12.2018 in respect of which an e-FIR no. NED-JN-000686 dated 18.12.2018 u/s 379 IPC was lodged by the complainant with PS Jyoti Nagar North East, Delhi. Since no action was taken either by OP or by the police agency for redressal of complainant’s grievance of wrongful debit from his account, the complainant alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OP was compelled to file the present complaint against OP before this Commission praying for issuance of direction against OP to remit the wrongfully debited sum of Rs. 15,057/- in his account alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation alongwith interest @ 15% on the total claimed amount of Rs. 1,40,057/- till realization.
2. Complainant has attached copy ofpassbook of old account number ending 067, copy of new passbook issued by OP with respect to new account no. ending 636, copy of passbook entries highlighting debit entry of Rs. 15,000/- made from the new account on 24.10.2017 also reflecting in entry dated 23.09.2018 of ATM withdrawal on the disputed date at 13:51 apart from debit entry of Rs. 57/- dated 29.09.2018 by interest, copy of complaint application dated 12.10.2018 by complainant to OP under OP receipt stamp dated 17.10.2018, copy of police complaint lodged by complainant against OP with PS SeemapuriDilshad Garden, Delhi dated 26.11.2018 vide diary no. 31B and copy of FIR NED-JN-000686 dated 18.12.2018 lodged by complainant with respect to mobile theft.
3. Notice was issued to OP on 22.01.2019. None appeared on behalf of OP despite service effected on 15.02.2019 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2019.
4.  Complainant filed ex-parte evidence and written arguments on 01.10.2019 and 01.11.2019respectively reiterating his grievance made in his complaint.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant through video conferencing and have carefully perused the case file and material documents placed on record therewith.

The debit of Rs. 15,057/- is clearly established from the passbook entry of the complainant vide account held with OP. The complainant had made sincere efforts by way of lodging prompt complaint with OP as well as with the concerned police station. OP cannot shirk its responsibility and duty towards its customer but it failed to place on record any switch report, no excess cash certificate, JP Log / E- Journal which in such cases are mandatorily required and recognised/ admissible defence for the bank in disputed ATM transaction cases. No documentary evidence has been filed by OP in the present case in sheer act of callousness and irresponsibility towards the complainant. OP failed to put forth its defence of non-provision / non availability of CCTV footage which also goes against it and contravenes the guidelines of RBI in this regard which the OP was bound to follow qua its customer. OP did not even send an SMS alert on the complainant’s mobile number linked with his account in contravention of RBI circular dated 06.07.2017 regarding Consumer Protection and limited liability of customer in unauthorized electronic banking transaction which mandates that the banks must put in place robust and dynamic fraud detection and prevention mechanism. Further zero liability of customer in case of third party breach in case customer notifies the bank within three working days of such unauthorized transactions and that the reversal time for such unauthorized transaction is ten working days from such notification by customer. The burden of proof for customer liability in case of such unauthorized electronic transaction shall lie on the bank.    

6. We therefore find OP deficient in service in having failed to address the problem of the complainant. We therefore find merit in the case of complainant and give him benefit of doubt in the absence of rebuttal by OP due to its non-appearance in the matter and accordingly direct the OP to refund / remit the wrongful debit of Rs. 15,057/- back to the account of the complainant held with OP.

We further award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and harassment suffered by the complainant inclusive of litigation charges payable by OP to complainant. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.
9. Announced on 06.11.2020

 

(ArunKumar Arya) President(Addl. Charge)

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member