Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/21/2020

Vijay Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

induslad bank - Opp.Party(s)

D.V Lamba

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

      CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.      21 of 2020

                                          DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 06.02.2020

                                                      DATE OF ORDER:                            04.12.2023

 

Vijay Pal son of Sh. Chand Ram R/o House No.1528, Sector-13, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Indusind Bank, Circular Road, Near Chiriyaghar Maur, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

2. Zonal Manager, Indusind Bank, III Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

Present:-        Sh. D.V. Lamba, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant is having a Saving Bank account No.159991566678 with OP No.1 and it issued Debit Card No.4053382700177439 to him.  On 18.06.2019, complainant had gone on tour alongwith his family members to Goa and stayed in The Byke 01 Anchor Hotel. During this stay, debit card of complainant was lost in the night. In the morning, there was message in his mobile phone qua withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- in transaction of Rs.10,000/- each.  Complainant has alleged that he did not share his PIN number of his debit card to any person at any point of time.  So, the debit card was got blocked on 19.06.2019 at about 8:30 a.m. OP No.2 issued a complaint no.77031198 in this regard at 8:42 a.m.  Matter was also reported to RBI vide a complaint. A complaint was also got lodged at P.S. Colva, Goa on 19.06.2019. Complainant has alleged that the debit card was having limit of withdrawal upto Rs.1.50 lac but despite that Rs.2.00 lacs were debited from his bank account thus the complainant has submitted that there may be in connivance of employee of the OPs. On 20.06.2019, complainant lodged a claim with OP No.1.regarding insurance of the ATM/debit card but it was not released.  Complainant has submitted that insurance fee of Rs.7500/- (Plus) taxes was deposited with OP No.1 for insurance plan of Rs.3.00 lacs.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Thus the complainant has sought directions to Ops to pay Rs.3.00 lacs as insurance amount of the ATM/Debit card, further to pay Rs.2.00 lacs which withdrawn from the account of complainant, also to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit may also be awarded.

2.                     Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua jurisdiction, suppression of material facts, locus standi and that complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary party. On merits, it has been denied that complainant on 19.06.2019 came to know about withdrawal of Rs.2.00  lacs  from his account.  As, the fact remains that the ATM PIN which are privy to the customer only may have been inadvertently compromised leading to successful ATM withdrawal. However, upon receiving information from complainant, his debit card was blocked on 19.06.2019. Insurance claim was filed by complainant and OP had received the claim amount of Rs.2.00 lac from the insurance company and credit was passed on to the complainant’s account on 08.05.2020 with a value dated 18.06.2019. Thus no monetary loss caused to complainant. OP bank duly informed Banking Ombudsman, RBI vide email dated 13.05.2020 that the complaint of complainant is closed.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on 01.10.2021

4.                     Ld. counsel for Ops tendered in evidence, affidavit of Mr. Ashu Khurana, authorized signatory  of OPs as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on 25.05.2023.

5.                     We have heave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                     Admittedly, the complainant has received Rs.2,00,000/- from the OPs in  his bank account and is clear from Statement of Account Annexure C-6.  Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the OPs were liable to pay Rs.3.00 lac in case of Lost Card Liability as reveals from document issued by OP Bank (Annexure C-4). As per this document, complainant has paid Rs.7500/- plus taxes for getting the said debit card.  Further, the Daily ATM Withdrawal limit from the alleged debit card as Rs.1,50,000/- then as to how Rs.2,00,000/- were withdrawn from the account of complainant by the unknown persons which amounts to gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.                     On the other side, learned counsel for OPs has argued that the amount which received from insurance company has already been credited to the account of complainant and the same has been accepted by him. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                     After having heard learned counsel for both the sides as well as going through the material on record, we are of the view that the OPs have arbitrarily released Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant whereas as per document Annexure C-4, he was entitled to Rs.3,00,000/-, which tantamount to gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part as well as is an example of unfair trade practice.  Record reveals that the insurance amount of Rs.2.00 lac was paid to complainant after filing of this complaint. Had the OPs redressed the grievance of complainant before knocking the doors of this Commission, he must have not dragged into this litigation. Such, act and conduct of OPs has harassed the complainant mentally as well as physically and has to suffer financial hardship.  Hence, the present complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)        To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

(iii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                                                                       

                        In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.      

Announced.

Dated: 04.12.2023.

 

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission,Bhiwani.