SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.16,000/-, to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and suffering and cost of the proceedings of the case.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a licensed Electrical Contractor and Supervisor doing Electrical Installation works including house wiring and other Industrial installation works. The complainant is having an SB account with the OP. His Account No. is 4306000100080651. The complainant was doing Electrical Installation works for ‘Royal Polymers’, Chapparappadav, Chemberi. For the purpose of inspection by the Electrical Inspectorate an amount of Rs.16,000/- was to be remitted as Inspection Fee. The amount was to be remitted and e-chalan is to be obtained for being produced before Electrical Inspectorate. It is submitted that the complainant on behalf of his client ‘Royal Polymers’ applied for e-chalan on remitting the Inspection fee of Rs.16,000/-, Payment was made through UPI mode linked to be SB account of the complainant. The transaction was made on 25/01/2021 at 15.21.57. The GRN number relating to this transaction was KL017467450202021E. Chelan could not be obtained for the reason that the payment verification with the bank was shown as “Failed”. But at the same time, the sum of Rs.16,000/- was debited from the complainant’s SB Account referred above, relating to this transaction. Since complainant could not obtain chelan, he again tried after a few minutes ie, on 25/01/2021 at 15.24.14 as per GRN No. KL01746792920202IE and payment of Rs.16,000/- was made through UPI mode linked to the complainant’s SB account with the OP. This time transaction was successful and he got the chalan for Rs.16,000/-. A sum of Rs.16,000/- was again debited from the account of the complainant in connection with the 2nd transaction. The said amount debited towards Chelan which ended in failure ought to have been restored to his account within a reasonable time. But strangely even after weeks, the said amount was not restored to the complainant’s account. He made enquires with the bank. There was no satisfactory explanation or action from the side of the OP. The amount of Rs.16,000/- debited from the complainant’s account for which petitioner could not generate chelan from Govt. site is still not refunded. Action of OP amounts to deficiency of service and dereliction of duty. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice, OP No.1 filed version contending that the complainant is having an SB account with the OP. The OP is not aware about the transaction done by the complainant because he has done the transaction by using his phone pay mode through the UPI agency. It is true that the UPI mode is linked with his SB account and it was done by him for this convenience. When he made transaction on 25/01/2021 the amount was debited from his account and it was transferred through his UPI agency. Again he made another transaction on the very same day and that amount also was debited from his account and transferred through his UPUI agency. In to that level the service of bank is very proper, punctual and the further movement of amount is only under the control of UPI agency and it the challan is not generated that is the service deficiency of either the beneficiary bank of e-treasury of the UPI agency. It is also admitted that the amount debited fromtehe complainant’s account is not returned to the account. That means that the amount was credited to the beneficiaries account and if it is not credited to the beneficiary account and it is not credited to the beneficiary account the UPI agency has to answer the same. It is not correct to say that the bank debited Rs.16,000/- tow times from the complainant’s account. There is no lapse on the part of the bank in debiting he amount and there is no service deficiency on the part of the bank as stated in the petition. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint against OP No.1.
As per the contention of OP No.1 complainant has impleaded OPs 2 and 3 as per IA No.96-2023.
OP No.2 filed memo of appearance and also filed written version. It is stated that this OP hereby denies all the allegations in the complaint. This complaint is not maintainable either in law or on merit against this OP No.2. This OP has not received any complaint form the complainant nor received any complaint from the complainant nor received any refund request through on the menu at the E-treasury site (etreasurey.kerala.gov.in). Usually, if the transaction is unsuccessful and the Chelan receipt has not been generated, the amount will be restored to the account within a reasonable time. Hence at first the complainant has to prove that the transaction was not successful. While going through the facts stated in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant applied for two chalan. Hence two separate GRN number has been generated. It is submitted that this OP is the statutory authority under Govt. of Kerala, Treasurey Department. Since there is no consumer relationship with the complainant, this court has no jurisdiction to try against his OP No.2. We are unnecessary party to this litigation. It is submitted that his OP has no idea about the transaction of the complainant with his bank ie, Punjab National Bank. This OP No.2 has not received any Mandatory Notice under Sec.80. There is no deficiency in service on the side on this OP No.2. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against OP No.2.
OP No.3 remained absent.
At the evidence stage, complainant has filed proof affidavit and document. Examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A10. Pw1 was cross-examined by OPs 1 and 2. Neither of OPs has not adduced oral or documentary evidence. After that learned counsels of Complainant and OPs No.2 filed argument notes.
Complainant alleged that in the 1st payment of Rs.16,000/- made by the complainant on behalf of his client ‘Royal polymers’ on 25/01/2021 at 15.21.57, through UPI mode linked to the SB account of the complainant with OP No.1 bank. In that transaction though received GRN number and debited Rs.16,000/- from the SB account, the bank Chelan could not be obtained and reported that ‘failed’. Then he again tried to transfers Rs.16,000/- after a few minutes 15.24.14. In that transaction Rs.16,000/- again debited and chalan also was received. Complainant has stated that since the 1st transaction of Rs.16,000/- was reported as failed, OP NO.1 ought to have refund the said amount to the complainant’s account within a reasonable time of 7 days. But the said amount was not still refund. Hence this complaint.
On the other hand OP No.1 contended that as per the command by the complainant, OP No.1 remitted the amount in the two transactions. According to OPNO.1, so the service of bank up to that level is proper and the remaining transaction is through the UPI agent and if any failure in the transaction, it is the UPI agent who has to return the amount to his account.
The learned counsel of complainant submitted a judgment of Hon’ble High court of Kerala 2019 (1) KLT 505. SBI V George in which Hon’ble High Court held that banking law – Fraudulent withdrawal of money through ATM – If a customer suffers los on account of the transactions not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer of the said loss.
Banking Law –Fraudulent transfer of money – RBI circular –No.RBI/2017-18/15 dated 06/07/2017 – If a customer suffers losses in connection with the transactions made without his junction by fraudsters, it has to be presumed that it is on account of the failure on the par t of the bank to put in place a system which prevents such withdrawals, and the banks are, therefore, liable for the loss caused to their customers.
In the instant case, Like Hon’ble High court in the above said case, OP No.1 bank is liable for the loss caused to the complainant. It is held that in the transactions relating to electronic banking facilities like ATM-Cum-Debit cards, net banking etc, the bank is responsible of the loss caused to its customers.
Here as far as the averments in complaint are concerned, complainant has no grievance against OPs 2 and 3. Here, OPs 2 and 3 are exonerated from their liability.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.16,000/- to the complainant together with Rs.7,500/-towards compensation of that mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2500/- towards cost of the proceedings. Opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which Rs.16,000+Rs.7500/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order by filing execution application under Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Account statement
A2&A3 -Copy of e-mail
A4-Request of complaint to Tressuary officer
A5- Communication forward to OP bank
A6-Communication by OP1
A7-Reminder e-mail sent by complainant to oP1
A8-Communicationby senior manger or OP1
A9-Communication from customer care
A10-Letter sent by complainant to ombudsman
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
