Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/307

Surinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kaushal

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 307 dated 21.06.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 14.10.2022.

 

Surinder Kaur widow of Late Sh. Balwinder Singh, R/o.53, Guru Angad Dev Nagar, Basant Avenue, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Indusind Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its concerned Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, ATM situated at Basant Avenue, Under Dugri Branch, Ludhiana through its concerned Branch Manager.                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rahul Kaushal, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Complaint against OP1 already dismissed as                                       withdrawn vide order dated 01.09.2021.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that she has been maintaining account No.100002508808 with OP1. On 08.07.2020, the complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- by using her ATM card from an ATM machine of OP2. The ATM machine did not dispense any cash but an amount of Rs.10,000/-  was deducted from account of the complainant maintained with OP1 reducing the outstanding balance from Rs.82,723.65 to Rs.72,723.65. The complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.2449594 dated 23.09.2020 which was registered with OP1 on 26.09.2020 but no action was taken. However, the complainant was informed by OP1 that OP2 had registered the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman/Reserve Bank of India but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. The complainant got served legal notice dated 25.05.2021 upon OP1 and OP2 but despite that the needful was not done. This amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. 

2.                The complaint as against OP1 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.09.2021.

3.                Upon notice, the OP2 appeared and filed written statement whereby it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. After the amount was not dispensed by the ATM machine, the complainant informed OP2 about the same. Thereafter, OP2 processed the matter and it was found that the machine had not dispensed the cash. As a result, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited back to the account of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer as she is not an account holder of OP2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The parties led evidence in their respective claims.  

4.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

5.                The facts of the case are not disputed. It is not disputed that on 08.07.2020, when the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from an ATM machine of OP2, the machine did not dispense the cash but an amount of Rs.10,000/- was got deducted from the account of the complainant maintained with OP1. It is also not disputed and is evident from Ex. R1 that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited back into the account of the complainant on 22.07.2021. In this regard, the counsel for OP2 has argued that the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed by returning the amount and moreover, the complainant is not a consumer of OP2 as her account is with OP1 and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 and, therefore, the complaint as against OP2 is liable to be dismissed.

6.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions of OP2. Admittedly, the amount wrongly debited into the account of complainant on 08.07.2020 was returned to the complainant on 22.07.2021, as stated in Ex. R1. Thus, the complainant was deprived of using the amount of Rs.10,000/- for a period of almost one year. So far as the question of privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that there is an arrangement amongst the banks which allows their respective account holders to use the ATM machines of the other banks. Therefore, it cannot be successfully argued on behalf of OP2 that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2. Considering the fact that the complainant was put to inconvenience due to inefficient working of ATM machine of OP2, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP2 is made to pay the interest @6% on the amount of Rs.10,000/- from 08.07.2020 to 22.07.2021 along with composite cost and compensation of Rs.2,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP2 to pay the interest @6% on the amount of Rs.10,000/- from 08.07.2020 to 22.07.2021 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. OP2 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Surinder Kaur Vs Indusind Bank and others                   CC/21/307

Present:       Sh. Rahul Kaushal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Complaint against OP1 already dismissed as withdrawn vide order              dated 01.09.2021.

                   Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP2 to pay the interest @6% on the amount of Rs.10,000/- from 08.07.2020 to 22.07.2021 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. OP2 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.