This appeal has been filed by the appellant IDBI bank Ltd. against the order dated 05.09.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.35/2006. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the first appeal are that the Complainant/respondent holds and maintains a savings account with the OP/Appellant Bank. The OP Bank offered to its customers a card known as “World Currency Card” that can be used outside India for all expenses in foreign currency upon remitting a particular amount in Indian Rupees in advance with IDBI Bank. This particular card can be used abroad in ATM to withdraw cash (in dollars, pounds etc.) and also to pay at the electronic terminal (EDC Terminals) of the merchant establishments in foreign currency. It is the case of the complainant that on 17.10.2005, while staying in the University in Leicester, UK complainant’s son attempted to pay for the accommodation fees using the above said card. However, when the card was swiped in the electronic terminal (EDC Terminal) the transaction was declined and the display showed “Not authorized”. In total, three attempts were made by the complainant’s son to swipe the card but there was no response in respect to the attempted withdrawals. The amount that was transacted to be paid towards University accommodation fees was £588.45. As a result, Complainant’s son could not make the payment of his accommodation fees on time and faced humiliation. Upon being informed about this incidence, complainant immediately accessed the card account online through the net banking facility provided by the bank in order to verify the status of the card account. He found that one transaction of £588.45 and two transactions of £300 each totalling to £1188.45 had been debited to the card account even though the transactions had failed. Hence, complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Commission, Chennai alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 and prayed for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.95,07,600 towards compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. The OPs filed their written version stating that on 17.10.2005, complainant’s son swiped the card in a EDC Terminal for paying the accommodation fees for £588.45 and instantly the transaction was honoured by the OPs as seen from the Log of transactions in respect of the said order. However, it seems that the transaction was declined at the merchant establishment and the EDC Machine display showed “not authorized”. The OPs submits that immediately after the above said swipes the complainant’s son swiped the card for two amounts of 300 British Pounds each and the same were honoured by the OPs. It appeared that the said two transactions were also displayed as not authorized in the merchant establishment EDC machine. Upon receiving an email dated 19.10.2005 from the complainant about the said incident, OPs immediately sent a dispute form to the complainant’s son to be duly filled and signed by him, so as to enable the OPs to credit back the amount. OP submitted that as per the VISA guidelines and regulations, if the transaction was not processed within the stipulated time limit, the transaction date should be more than 6 calendar days prior to the processing date. Therefore the issuer bank has to wait for a mandatory period of more than 6 calendar days to see whether a request for the transaction amount comes from the acquirer bank. Only when there is no such request within the period, the issuer bank can credit back the amount to the customer’s account after the said period. OP stated that they did not decline the three transactions as there were enough funds in the account to honour the transaction. Once the request comes from the Acquirer Bank for the release of funds, the same is to be honoured. OPs had promptly credited the said amount to the complainant’s account on 27.10.2005 and there is no deficiency on their part, as alleged. Rejecting the pleas and arguments of OPs, State Commission partly allowed the complaint and held OPs liable for deficiency in service on their part as the incidence had caused severe inconvenience, suffering and mental agony to the complainant and his son. State Commission directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation to the complainant. 3. Hence the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant bank stated that “World Currency card” was issued by the bank to the complainant and it was used by the son of the complainant in England. His son has used the card and the card had operated properly before the transaction in question. The complainant’s son first tried to pay the fee by the card for £588.45. When the transaction was not successful, he tried with lower amount of £300 twice. As per the VISA rules, the amount was debited from the account of the complainant equivalent to £1188.45. The amount could not be paid due to the problem at the other end i.e. with the receiving bank for which the appellant bank is not responsible. When the card was supplied to the complainant, it was made clear in the conditions supplied to the complainant that in certain cases there may be some time gap between the actual debit from the account and actual receipt from the other side and if the transaction is not successful, the amount after reconciliation will come back to the complainant’s account within a period of 6-7 days. When the complainant contacted the bank in the present case informing the debit of £1188.45, the bank immediately took the step of taking up the matter with the bank on the other side and the concerned VISA authorities for reversing the amount. After getting clearance, the bank reversed the amount to the complainant’s account on 27.10.2005. Thus, the amount was reversed within 10 days, which is the usual time taken in such cases. As the amount was paid back to the complainant’s account, there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant bank. However the State Commission has not appreciated the facts in the present case and the VISA rules, which govern the use of the card in question and has ordered a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant, whereas the total amount of transaction comes to about only Rs.92,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the State Commission did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as the total amount involved was only Rs.92,000/-, though the complainant’s claim was for Rs.49,21,180/-, which was without any justification and the State Commission should have out rightly rejected this complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 7. On the other side the learned counsel for respondent/complainant stated that due to failure of the card, not only the fees could not be paid in time, but some other arrangement was made for paying the fees and in this way, the complainant’s son suffered lot of mental tension and harassment. Learned counsel drew my attention to the following observations of the State Commission:- “19. However, the amounts debited from the complainant’s son’s account were credited back to the account after a delay of 10 days. Whatever be the reason attributed citing their own rules and regulations, and whatever be the explanation offered by the opposite parties, the deficiency in service is very much on record and the deficiency in service is well established by the very fact that the three swipes/transactions were not successful, and further that the amounts were wrongly debited from the complainant’s son’s account.” 8. The learned counsel further stated that the State Commission has given proper reasoning for awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in the following para:- “25. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakh (Rupees Two Lakh only) as total compensation to the complainant towards the monetary loss; and loss of reputation; and loss of credit-worthiness on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for the mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant and his son and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Time for compliance- Two months, from the date of receipt of this order copy.” 9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that reversal of the amount is not important. The main aspect in the consumer complaint is that the complainant may be compensated for mental agony and harassment, which the complainant’s son suffered in a foreign country. Had the alternate arrangements for paying fees not been made, even the admission of the complainant’s son could have been cancelled. As all this mental tension and harassment has been suffered due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation as awarded by the State Commission. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. It is seen that the amount remained outside the account only for 10 days. It is true that during this time the complainant and his son suffered some harassment and mental agony. However, when the complainant had contacted the bank, it was assured by the bank that they are doing needful in the matter and the amount if not credited to the account of the recipient, it would be credited to the account of the complainant. It is also seen that the terms and conditions of the World Currency Card clearly states the following:- “Problems with Purchases The Bank accepts no responsibility for refusal by any establishment to honour the card.” 11. Apart from the above international transaction under this card were to follow VISA rules, which clearly stipulate that if the transaction is not complete the money would come back to the account after a minimum period of 6 days, which is taken for verification of the transaction. When an application in the form of e-mail was already sent by the complainant to the bank, there was no need to panic as either the amount would come back to the account of the complainant or the payment would be made to the other side. In whatever way, the money is transacted, no loss was going to happen. In the present case, the amount has already come to the account of the complainant within 10 days. There was basically no cause of action for filing consumer complaint. At the most the complainant has suffered loss of interest on the withdrawn amount of Rs.92,000/- for a period of 10 days. It will not be more than Rs.500/- in any case. Though the bank has not taken any guarantee to cover up this loss of interest, however, even if that is accepted, the total financial loss to the complainant was less than Rs.500/- for which the complainant could have been compensated. The issuer bank cannot take any guarantee about the failure at the other end of the merchant establishment. In fact, Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that compensation if any has to be commensurate to the loss and injury suffered by the complainant. Thus, for a loss of Rs.500/-, the compensation for mental agony and harassment cannot be awarded to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. As the son of the complainant suffered lot of mental tension and mental agony as well as humiliation when the transaction failed as he could not pay the fees, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it appropriate to allow a consolidated compensation of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the bank to the complainant instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the State Commission. The cost of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the State Commission is maintained. Thus, the petitioner bank is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order failing which an interest @8% p.a. shall be payable on this amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of this order till actual payment. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. |
