Shri Partha Kumar Basu, Hon’ble Member :
The Final hearing was conducted on 25.01.2024 and today is fixed for delivery of Final order.
This is a complaint case regarding a dispute in the banking sector against the OP-1 and OP-2 who are respectively the local bank and their office bearer with a prayer for a direction on the OPs to pay a compensation for the negligent act by the OPs alongwith unfair trade practices due to their unauthorised inferences and a litigation cost.
The gist of the complaint as averred is that the complainant is a savings bank account holder of the OP bank at their local branch. An amount of Rs.65,000/- got credited on 27.03.2020 in the bank account of the complainant as reflected in the pass book. But after 8 days i.e. on 04.04.2020, the said amount of Rs.65,000/- again got debited from that account, without intimation to or knowledge of the complainant. Being worried and dissatisfied for such act of unauthorised interference by the OP bank without any intimation to him, the complainant visited the bank several times, but inspite of assurances from the bank manager, no action was taken on it. The petitioner lodged written complaint dated 22.07.2021 to which OPs did not respond. The complainant in the petition claimed that even if there been a mistake from the side of the bank but debiting his account should have not taken place without any intimation to him, which infringes the safety and security of the account holder in violation of the extant circulars or guidelines of the RBI.
The complainant thus alleges negligence of OPs and deficiency regarding giving service and prays for a direction on the OP bank not to interfere in the accounts of the holders without obtaining consent or without serving intimation to them. The complainant also prayed for a direction upon the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the negligent act by the OPs alongwith unfair trade practices due to their unauthorised interferences and also claimed a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant and a litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. In support of the complaint petition, the complainant exhibited pass book copy (Annexure-A) and complaint copy dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure-B).
The OPs in their W/V resisted the complaint petition by stating that the complaint is hit by Limitation Act and being the Banking Ombudsmen as the proper forum to adjudicate such disputes. Further the OP bank contested that the complainant is not a consumer and hence not coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The other points as contested by the OPs are that the said cheque, which was drawn in favour of another account holder got erroneously credited in the account of the complainant and again got debited from the said account of the complainant. Such corrections were undertaken by the authorised bank officials and there were no intentional latches on the part of the OP. The OP in the point no.16 of the W/V averred on affidavit that any unauthorised transactions or wrong credit / debit entry are effected within 10 days by the bank under normal circumstances. Hence the OPs denied all the charges as levelled against them.
Both sides contested the case and filed their respective BNAs.
We have gone through the disputes read with all records and documents.
The limitation period from the date of cause of action from 04.04.2020 till filing complaint on 19.09.2022 is not over due to continuous cause of action that persisted when the legal notice from complainant dated 22.07.2021 went unresponded. Further, as per settled principal of Law and in line with a catena of Judgements from Apex Court, the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and the Consumer Redressal machinery under the Consumer Protection Act both redresses the cases on deficiency in banking service and both of which can run simultaneously and concurrently being with different objectives. Hence both the above points as contested by the OPs are untenable and the instant complaint case is falling well within the jurisdiction of this Consumer commission.
About dealing with the factual part of this matter regarding wrong crediting of the amount in the complainant’s saving account and subsequent debit of the same within 8 days, is not in dispute. The moot point centres around whether the bank is authorised to debit an amount from customer’s account without taking permission of the account holder or intimation to him/her, which was earlier credited in that account. From the records and evidences on affidavit, it is the admitted position of both sides and also quite apparent that the said amount got credited erroneously in another customer’s account who is not the intended recipient. The Banking services are guided by the policies and RBI guidelines and the authorised officials of the bank are required to make correction to such errors, if any, by exercising their delegation of authority after reconciliation of the accounts. To the contrary, if an error occurs by a wrong entry of debit / credit, it is the incumbent upon the bank and also as per extant policy, that the same needs to be corrected at the earliest opportunity, provided such transactions are bonafide. The claim of the customer to take his advance permission is not supported by any extant rules or policy or RBI guidelines that was exhibited by the complainant. The money needs to reach the intended recipient and so long the complainant is not the beneficiary of the same (also as per his admitted position in this case), there should not any ground to take clearance of him. The bank is in their rights to make payment to the right person who is the actual beneficiary of such transactions. The following Judgement in the matter of Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. case reported in (1957) 99 Cal LJ 19 when it was held that :-
“relationship of banker and customer being that of debtor and creditor, no particular sum was earmarked for any particular customer and therefore, it could not be said that any declaration would lie in respect of a particular property of the plaintiff lying with the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the money in the present case was a chose in action and therefore this aspect was not considered in the Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co.'s case, (1957) 99 Cal LJ 19 and therefore the decision was distinguishable. A chose in action is debt or movable property. To equate the banking account with chose in action is to hold that the money is earmarked which it is not. The relationship of banker and creditor is such that when the duty of the banker is to pay when there is a demand for it, no creditor and no constituent can claim a particular fund in specie as belonging to the constituent. Therefore, there is no specific property and there is no chose in action. A constituent can sue on a cheque and if it is dishonoured he can sue for dishonour of the cheque. A constituent can demand balance of the money by closing his account. But the question is whether a constituent is entitled to a declaration that the account is wrongfully debited.”
So it is held that the complaint petition ought to have something in substance to have the true construction of a declared statute. There is no such aspect present in this case.
However, it appears from the exhibit no. B comprising copy of complaint dated 22.07.2021 and postal track report that it was duly delivered to addressee bank on 23.07.2021. The bank official in the in Sl. no.3 of the reply on affidavit dated 11.12.2023 has not only denied about existence of a ‘Customer Care’ platform but also in their reply against Question no.10 from complainant did not reply and rather accepted that the said complainant letter dated 22.07.2021 was not disposed of. But the Grievance Redressal Mechanism namely “Customer Rights, Grievance Redressal and Compensation Policy – 2021 issued on 25.10.2021 (Version-2) and several other policies are already in place and hosted in the public domain for this OP bank which is operating as a Public Sector and not addressing customer’s grievance is a violation of RBI Guidelines as well as extant SBI circulars, rules and policies. The OPs have failed to exhibit any cogent proof that the grievances as expressed in the complaint dated 22.07.2021 was addressed at all by dealing with it and letting the customer/complainant know about it’s outcome.
Refusal to address customer’s grievance tantamounts to deficiency in services.
Also the denial on affidavit about any existence of any customer care facility or grievance handling mechanism in a public sector calls for punitive action on concerned official/organisation.
Hence the instant case, be and the same, is hereby allowed in part on contest against the OP bank with a cost as per following orders :-
ORDER
- The OPs are directed to deal with the complaint letter dated 22.07.2021 for all the ingredients and respond to the customer with it’s outcome, within 45 days from the date of this Order.
- The OP1 and OP2, jointly and severally, are liable and hereby directed to make a payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- at the account of ‘Consumer Legal Aid’ within 45 days from the date of this order with a copy of proof of payment to the complainant.
The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after the expiry of 45 days in case the orders are not complied with by the OPs within the timeframe.
Let a copy of the certified order be supplied free of cost to the parties as per CPR.
The final order will be available in the following website www.confonet.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
