Delhi

North East

CC/158/2016

Deepmala Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No 158/2016

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Deepmala W/o Sh Sunil Mishra R/o A-30, Gali No.1, Hardev Puri Near Mukta Bharti School, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1	Indian Bank Sikka Neat House B-125, Hardev Puri, Delhi-110032
2	Central Bank of India 1450, Jyoti Nagar Main Road Shahdara, Delhi-110094	Opposite Party
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	21-06-2016
	DATE OF DECISION      :	21-02-2017

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

1. As per complaint, complainant is an account holder of OP1 Bank vide Account No. 6309512778. OP1 issued an ATM Card in her favour. On 12.02.2016 she went to withdraw some amount. As OP1 Bank’s ATM was out of service, she went to ATM belonging to OP2 at Durgapuri Road, Delhi. Between 03:00 p.m. to 03:30 p.m., she tried to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- from ATM of OP2 but the ATM was showing error in service. Thus even after waiting for a long time no money came out from ATM and she came back to her home. No slip of the transaction or message thereof on her phone was also received by her.
2. On 23.06.2016 when the complainant visited OP1 Bank to get her Passbook completed, she came to know that Rs. 10,000/- have been debited out of her account. Immediately, she lodged a complaint to the Bank Manager of OP1 under due receipt. But no action was taken on her complaint. Request for CCTV footage was also declined by the Manager of OP1 Bank stating that as the money has already been transferred, he can not help her.
3. On 09.03.2016 complaint vide No. 201516014015292 was also lodged by complainant to RBI but no help was provided from the RBI also. Complainant is regularly visiting the OPs but no satisfactory reply is being given from their side. Complainant has prayed that after getting the inspection of CCTV footage, her amount may be refunded with interest thereon.
4. OPs were duly served on 16.07.2016 & 14.07.2016 but none appeared on behalf of OP1 and after three opportunities OP1 was proceeded against Ex parte. Although representative of OP2 & OP3 appeared on 4.8.16 but no reply was filed and vide order 22.9.2016 they were deemed to be proceeded against Ex-parte as it was observed that in case no reply is filed during the course of the day they shall also be proceeded against Ex parte. However, during the course of proceedings on 22.9.2016 complainant has stated that the disputed amount has been credited in her account and she has prayed only for compensation and litigation cost for the sufferings she met due to OPs.
5. Reversing the entry of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in complainant account by OP1 is clearcut admission of wrong debit entry. However, complainant’s prayer for refund no more survives. Only question to consider remains about harassment and financial losses suffered by complainant, if any. In support of her complaint, complainant has filed copies of passbook entries, duly received complaint made by complainant to OP1 Bank, ATM service centre claim form and affidavit. Hence, evidence was no more required and the case was fixed for order on the issue of compensation and litigation cost only.
6. As per RBI guidelines in case of such complaint, complainant is entitled for a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day if the claim is not settled within seven days from the date of complaint. Another RBI guideline shows that the penalty aforesaid is applicable only if the complaint is lodged within 30 days from the date of unauthorized/ disputed withdrawal. In the present case though the transaction relates to earlier date i.e. 12.02.2016 but the complaint is lodged on 23.06.2016. We have to see as to complainant has lodged the complaint within 30 days or not.
7. As per principles of natural justice time is to be reckoned from the date of knowledge only. In the present case as per complainant she came to know about the disputed transaction only on 23.06.2016 when she visited OP1 Bank for getting her passbook completed, while she received no message of the disputed transaction alleged on 12.02.2016 from OPs. Not only this but also ATM, used by her on relevant date, did not deliver any slip of the transaction. Thus, period of 30 days shall be commenced from the date of knowledge i.e. 23.06.2016 and not from 12.2.2016. On the vary date complaint was lodged by complainant. Not only this, complainant’s request for CCTV footage was also not acceded to by the OP Bank.
8. On the other hand even after service to OPs, no defence was placed on record by OPs by filing its reply or by placing on record the CCTV footage of particular transaction. Thus, the complaint of complainant not being controverted is deemed to be proved which is also substantiated by the credit entry of the disputed amount, in complaint’s account, by OP1.
9. On the basis of aforesaid discussions / findings we are of the view that OPs have wrongly debited OP’s account with Rs. 10,000/-. Refund whereof was also not made by the OPs within allowed seven days as per RBI guidelines, even after due complaint and follow-ups of complainant.
10. Therefore, holding the OPs guilty for deficiency in service and harassment we direct OPs Banks to pay to complainant, jointly or severally a penalty of refund 100/- per day, since 1.7.16 till the date of final payment.
11. No order as to litigation cost.
12. All these amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
14. File be consigned to record room.
15. Announced on: - 21.02.2017

 

(N.K.Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member