Haryana

Karnal

CC/124/2019

Neeru Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Ujjivan Small Finance Bank - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 124 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.05.03.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 01.10.2019

Neeru Bala wife of Ranjit Singh resident of House no.3484, Gurunanakpura Colony, Pingli Chowk, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

Manager Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Model Town, Karnal house no.314 L.Model Town, Main Market, Karnal and Ashok mobile no.7082919880.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                   Shri Kavinder Singh Advocate for opposite party.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has borrowed a loan of Rs.40,000/- from opposite party(OP) for repair of his house but in the account of complainant the amount of 38,400/- has been credited. The abovesaid loan was sanction on 29.11.2018. On 30.11.2018 complainant went to the ATM for taking the said amount. The complainant tried six times to take the money and lastly she has received Rs.20,000/- from the ATM. The amount of Rs.25,000/- be deducted from the account no.2274110010020057 of the complainant but she has received the message of Rs.20,000/- on her mobile. Then complainant complained in this regard on toll free no.18002082121 for six times and they demanded seven days to enquire the matter and lateron they demanded fifteen days time and thereafter they further demanded one month time. Lastly, they closed the complainant of complainant on the ground that the complainant has debited the amount of Rs.25,000/- from her account. After that complainant demanded CCTV footage from OP but OP demanded the charges of Rs.590/- for each footage. The complainant is a poor lady and she has no source of income. Due to this act of OP complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss. Hence complainant file the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that complainant has been sanctioned loan in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. As per the process, the complainant had to pay to the OP bank an amount of Rs.472/-towards processing fee plus applicable good and service tax and Rs.10/-towards Credit Bureau Charges, in relation to the loan. Further, the complainant has opted for life insurance coverage for herself and her spouse in regard to the loan and hence had to pay an amount of Rs.1071/- towards insurance premium. The said amount has been paid out of the proceeds of the loan and after deduction of the said total amount of Rs.1553/- an amount of Rs.38,447/- has been disbursed and credited to the account of complainant on 29.11.2018, which has been drawn by the complainant. After availing the loan in the above manner the complainant has started repayment in the loan. Till April an amount of Rs.8676/- has been received by the OP Bank as prompt repayment in the loan account of the complainant. It is further stated that in the meantime, the complainant has approached the Karnal branch of OP Bank on 3.12.2018 complaining about unsuccessful took place on 30.11.2018 at the ATM of Kotak, Mahindra Bank Ltd. located at Pingli located at Pingli Chowk, Karnal. According to the complainant, she had made six sequenced transactions of Rs.5,000/-each through the ATM of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. but received an amount of Rs.20,000/- though her linked account had been debited to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant has also stated that an amount of Rs.5000/- so debited had been received by her subsequently, on 30.11.2018 itself, by way of re-credit to her account and an amount of Rs.25,000/- involved in the above referred transactions had been reconciled. However, as per the version of the complainant, a further amount of Rs.5,000/- remained unreconciled and the complainant had requested the OP Bank to take requisite measures for reversal. It is further stated that OP bank has noted that the ATM transaction is “OFF-US Transaction,” viz., a transaction where the Issuing Bank and the Acquiring Bank are different entities. The Issuing Bank is the Respondent Bank and the Acquiring Bank is Kotak Mahindera Bank Ltd. As per the guidelines of the Regulator of OP Bank, viz, the Reserve Bank of India, all disputes regarding ATM failed transactions should be settled by the Issuing Bank and the Acquiring Bank only though the ATM system provider. No bilateral settlement arrangement outside the dispute resolution mechanism available with the system provider is permissible.

3.             It is further stated that in the light of and in conformity with the guidelines of the RBI and NPCI, immediately upon receipt of grievance from the complainant, on 3.12.2018 itself, the OP Bank has raised chargeback on the Acquiring Bank. However, the chargeback has been rejected by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. on 3.12.2018 for the reason that the disputed transaction is a successful transaction as per their records. Since the complainant has disputed the stand taken by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a Pre-Arbitration has been raised on 11.12.2018 by the OP Bank with regard to the above matter. This time also it has been clarified and confirmed that the complainant had received an amount of Rs.25,000/- and one transaction of Rs.5000/- which got failed, had been reversed to the account of the complainant on the same date of the transaction, i.e.30.11.2018. Accordingly, the pre-arbitration has been rejected on 26.12.2018. It is further stated that it  has been informed to the complainant, if she was not satisfied with the decision in Pre-Arbitration she might approach for Arbitration proceedings by payment of requisite fee of Rs.500/- plus GST. However, the complainant has chosen not to go for Arbitration. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sulochana Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 11.7.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 16.09.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             As per the version of the complainant, on 30.11.2018 she went to ATM for taking the amount. The complainant tried six times to take the money and she has received only Rs.20,000/- but the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deducted from her account. The complainant claimed in this regard on toll free number, they demanded seven days to enquire the matter, but OP lastly closed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has debited the amount of Rs.25,000/- from her account. The complainant demanded CCTV footage from the OP, but OP demanded the charges of Rs.590/- for each footage.

8.             On the other hand, as per version of the OP, the issuing Bank is the OP and the Acquiring Bank is Kotak Mahindera Ltd. As per the guidelines of the Regulator of the OP Bank, viz, the Reserve Bank of India, all the disputes regarding ATM failed transactions should be settled by the issuing Bank and the Acquiring Bank only through the ATM system provider, no bilateral settlement arrangement outside the dispute resolution mechanism available with the system provider in permissible. The OP Bank has raised chargeback on the Acquiring Bank. The charge back has been rejected by Kotak Mahindera Bank Ltd. on 3.12.23018 for the reason that the disputed transaction is a successful transaction as per their records.

9.             At the time of withdrawal of the amount, the complainant was a company with one Smt. Sulochana wife of Subhash and during the course of evidence she tendered her affidavit Ex.CW2/A stating therein that at that time, she had also gone to the bank with the complainant and she withdrawn Rs.25,000/-. The complainant also want to withdraw Rs.25,000/-, but she had received only Rs.20,000/-. The version of the complainant has been fully corroborated by the said witness. As per record after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the OP did not take affected action. The complainant would have complained for the whole transaction but she complained only Rs.5000/- i.e. only one failed transaction. Thus, it was the duty of the OP to satisfy the complainant, when the complainant had not received the amount of Rs.5000/-. Thus, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.5000/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:01.10.2019                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member