Dt. of filing- 09/11/2017
Dt. of Judgement- 31/12/2018
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant namely Shri Babu Banerjee against Opposite Parties namely (1) IndusInd Bank (2) The Manager and (3) The Chief Manager of IndusInd Bank alleging efficiency in service on their part.
Complainant ‘s case in brief is that he is a saving bank account holder in the OP bank and learnt after obtaining statement of account on 08.06.2017 that an amount of Rs. 11,500/- was debited from his account on 09.01.2017. No such transaction was made by him o 09.01.2017. To his query bank failed to supply any document as to how said amount was debited from his account. His request to return the said amount in his account also was in vein inspite of him sending letter and notice to the O.P Bank. So present complainant has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs. 11,500/-, to pay compensation of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.
Complainant has annexed with the petition of complaint. Copy of letter dated 16.06.2017 sent to Branch Manager and statement of account.
Opposite Parties have contested the case by filing written version denying the allegation against them in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the complainant has applied for debit card on 05.01.2016 and on the basis of such application same has been processed and thus Rs. 10,000/- has been debited towards the charges for the said card and Rs.. 1500/- debited towards the charges as tax. But when the said card sent was returned unserved, after observing necessary formalities to destroy the card, Rs. 11,500/- has been credited in the saving bank account of the complainant on 04.12.2017. Thus the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In course of evidence, both the respective parties adduced evidence by filing affidavit-in-chief followed by cross-examination by way of filing questionnaires and reply hereto. Thereafter argument of both sides have been heard. Complainant has also filed the written notes of argument.
So the following points are to be determined :-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in providing service by the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?
Decision of reason
Point No. 1 & 2 :
Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has a saving bank account in the OP bank being no. 100003306274. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 11,500/- only was debited from the account by the bank. However, it is the contention of the OPs that the said amount was debited towards issuance for debit card on the basis of the application by the complainant. Rs. 10,000/- was debited towards the charges for issuing the debit card and Rs. 1500/- was tax. According to complainant, said amount of Rs. 11,500/- was debited without his knowledge and consent.
At the outset it may be pertinent to point out that the amount of Rs. 11,500/- which was debited from the account has been credited again by the bank on 04.12.2017 in the saving bank account of the complainant which appears to have been done after filing of this complaint case. Be that as it may, moot question which is to be considered is whether the complainant had applied for issuance of the debit card and whether bank had sent it to the complainant as alleged by the bank.
No document is filed by the bank in support of its contention that the debit card was sent but it was returned unserved. So in the absence of any document that part of the claim of the bank, cannot be accepted. However, bank has filed copy of the application with fristi on 10.10.2018 and copy of the said document has also been served upon the complainant as appears from the endorsement made in the Fristi.
On perusal of the said application it appears that it was filed on 05.01.2016 for issuing debit card and it bears signature in the name of the complainant. Complainant has not denied and disputed the fact of filing said application before the bank and that it bears his signature even though written argument has been filed by the complainant on 14.12.2018. Not even a single word is mentioned challenging his signature in the application form dated 05.01.2016. So it is cleared that the complainant did apply for the issuance of debit card. But since bank failed to substantiate that they actually issued the debit card or it was sent but returned unserved, there has been deficiency in service on their part. It is strange that bank even did not send any massage to the complainant intimating about issuing debit card and its return. No date has been stated either in the written version or anywhere in OP’s evidence as to when the said debit card was sent to the complainant. The statement of account shows that amount of Rs. 11,500/- was debited from the complainant’s account on 09.01.2017but it took almost a year to reverse the same as according to OP they credited the amount on 04.12.2017 . So on consideration of entire facts and situation, complainant is entitled to compensation towards harassment and mental agony and litigation cost for being compelled to file this complaint. An amount of Rs. 12,000/-as compensation and Rs. 8,000/-as litigation cost would be justified.
These points are thus an answered accordingly.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/632/2017 is allowed on contest. Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation and Rs. 8,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10%per annum till realisation.
