1.                 This is an appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 17.9.2009 passed in complaint case No.662 of 2009 : Sh. Satish Bansal Vs. ICICI Bank.

2.                 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he opened an account bearing No.091001502265 with the OP Bank. The case of the complainant is that on 3.4.3009, when he withdrew the amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- at 15:54:09 and 15:55:18 on 3.4.2009 from SBI ATM at Chandigarh Railway Station, the said amounts did not came out of the ATM but the same were debited from his account. The complainant, it was averred, made a complaint with the OP Bank on 6.4.2009 who told him to wait for five days. As per the complainant, the matter was being lingered on by the OP Bank on pretext or the other and finally, the said amounts were received by the complainant on 6.5.2009. Alleging the delay in receiving the said amounts from the OP as deficiency in service on its part, the complainant had filed the present complaint.

3.                 The version of OP is that the complaint had received the said amounts back into his account on 6.5.2009 and there was some technical error on account of which the amounts could not be disbursed by the ATM, which was beyond the control of the Bank. It was pleaded on receiving the complaint from the complainant, the matter was immediately taken up with the SBI and the credit for the said amounts were given back into the account of the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, recorded that admittedly, the amount of Rs.1,500/-, which was debited from the account of the complainant on 3.4.2009 and which did not reach the hands of the complainant due to technical error in the ATM, remained with the OP Bank for about 33 days and definitely, the OP had earned interest thereon. It further recorded that admittedly, the complainant had also written number of letters to the OP Bank for the reversal of the said amount, which was remitted back to the account of the complainant as late as 6.5.2009. Holding this delayed remittance of amount to the account of the complainant by the OP Bank as deficiency in service on its part, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay the complainant interest @8% per annum on the said amount for the period from 3.4.2009 to 6.5.2009 besides Rs.550/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with by the OP Bank within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt its certified copy failing which, OP Bank was to pay penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.5.2009 till the amount was actually paid to the complainant.

5.                 Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. Earlier, this complaint was dismissed in default for non appearance of the appellant but the same was subsequently restored vide order dated 21.12.2009 passed in M.A. No.10 of 2009. After restoration, the appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 21.1.2010 and was adjourned to 8.2.2010 for argument, on which date, Sh. Satish Bansal, appellant appeared in person whereas Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate represented the respondent/OP Bank.

6.                 Sh. Satish Bansal, appellant (complainant) in person submitted that he had been put to avoidable harassment, inconvenience and mental agony and the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank stood admitted by the learned District Forum but the learned District Forum in the order had awarded no compensation to the complainant for his sufferance. He also submitted that he is presently employed in Gurgaon and had to come to attend the Court from there involving a lot of expenses. He emphatically prayed that he be suitably compensated for his sufferance.

7.                 In response, Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/OP submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of Bank because the complainant had used the ATM Card from SBI ATM and the amount was debited into his account  on  the receipt of statement from the SBI. He also submitted that the OP bank  took all  actions  to get  the  wrong  entry reversed and the moment  confirmation  for  the same was received from the SBI, the entry was reversed. He, therefore, submitted that actually, there was no deficiency on the part of the Bank and the complainant for the reasons best known to him had not made SBI a party.

8.                 We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondent.

9.                 From the order of learned District Forum, it is quite evident that it took the OP Bank over a month to reverse the wrong entry and consequently, the complainant had to suffer due to this delay on the part of the OP Bank for the reversal of the entry. Having held the OP Bank deficient in service, in the interest of justice, the learned District Forum should have also compensated the complainant for his sufferance, mental agony and physical harassment etc. However, vide the impugned order, the learned District Forum has only directed the OP Bank to pay the complainant interest @8% per annum on the amount for a period of one month. This when calculated, keeping in view the amount involved and the period of delay, comes to Rs.10/-, which obviously is not adequate to compensate the complainant for his sufferance. Thus, viewing the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded in the shape of interest @8% per annum for a period of one month does not meet the ends of justice and the impugned order needs to be modified in this regard. 

10.               Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the OP Bank is now directed to pay the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation in addition to the interest @8% allowed by the District Forum. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is upheld.

11.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

9^th February 2010.