Non receipt of money from CSP of Allahabad Bank at Mohanahat Branch, Police station Kumarganj but the amount being debited from his account No. 31876399891 with SBI Patiram has aggrieved the consumer to lodge this complaint for redressal u/s 12 of the C.P Act 1986.
The summation of the fact for which this complaint is lodged goes that the complainant Nibir Sarkar working as a civic volunteer had gone to withdraw Rs.10.000/- (Ten thousand) on 30.10.2017 at the CSP of Allahabad Bank, Mohanahat Branch. But due to link failure he had not got the Money from the branch but the said amount had been debited from his account as per SMS of his Mobile. Immediately he contacted the manager of Allahabad Bank of the said branch and according to his advice he contacted the manager of SBI Patiram with which his account is maintained, as it is reported by Allahabad Bank that they had got no reference of transfer of money from SBI Patiram branch to his branch. The complainant in writing with registered post further sent a letter to the OP-2 on 08.12.2017 with a request to credit to his account the said debited account. Though according to document filed to this Forum the said letter has been forwarded to Allahabad Bank, Mohanahat Branch by the recipient bank. But before sending this letter the complainant on 24.11.2017 further contacted the said Allahabad Bank branch in writing about the missing of his money. Though both the Bank suggested him that the wrongful debited amount will be credited to his account within 7 days or more but till the date of lodging this complaint i.e. on 22.02.2018 he has not got back his debited amount. Under the circumstances the complainant had prayed for getting back his money with interest and a compensation with litigation cost the total of which as claimed is Rs.20, 000/-(Twenty thousand).
The OP No.1&3 in their written version to this Forum dated 28.03.2018 had admitted that the complainant through CSP Chakbhagban (Bank Mitra Shri Joy Siddhanta) had made a transaction on 30.10.2017, but due to non credit of the amount no payment has been made to the complainant. But it had been observed that a withdrawal vide Reference No. 576212520848224 of SBI has been recorded in the account of the complainant. As there is no credit reference to our bank, the concerned SBI with their said withdrawal reference can only enquire into the matter and can credit the wrongful debit of the complainant to the concerned account of the complainant. The CSP is just playing the role of intermediary between the customer and SBI with which the complainant maintain his account. We are rather helpless to make any solution to this problem.
The OP-2 in their written version has admitted that on 30.10.2017 a sum of Rs 10,000/- has been debited from the account of the complainant through CSP transaction of Allahabad Bank Mohanahat branch. He had also informed with document (Kept in file) that they had intimated the OP-2 regarding non receipt of the said withdrawal being debited from their account and requested to help the complainant to get his money refunded on 12.12.2017. But till date the OP-1 had made no correspondence with the OP-2 and the fraudulent transaction had not been credited to the account of the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on their part.
The date 17.05.2018 was fixed for final hearing but it is unfortunate that no OP appeared before this Forum. Only the complainant himself in person appeared and stated what he had already stated in his complaint.
Points for decision:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer to the OPs?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and on which part?
DECISION WITH REASONS
It has already been noted that no Ops had appeared on the date of final hearing. So decision has to be taken on the basis of the written version filed to this Forum by the Ops & what they had stated to this Forum on the date of filing w/v. From record it is found that the Ops had been summoned to file their written version on 28.03.2018. The OP-1 & 3 had filed their written version on 28.03.2018 but the OP-2 had filed the written version on 18.04.2018. So it is to be resolved that the OP-2 had filed their written version after getting the copy of the written version of the OP- 1 & 3. But the OP-2 remains silent in spite of the averment of the OP-1 & 3 “The SBI can only enquire about the transaction as the withdrawal reference is with their Bank system. There is no reference number generated to Allahabad Bank. So it is quite impossible to enquire about the transaction. Such type of cases takes place on regular basis under A.E.P.S (Aadhaar enable of payment system), but any of the cases the money is refunded by the concern bank whose account is debited (in this case SBI)”. In this context it is to be cited the important point in the case SBI vs Ram Sagar Roy and another [2015(3) CRP188 (NC)] ‘Bank cannot put customer at loss on plea of malfunctioning of computer’. In the instant case the OP-2 had tried to convince through their written statement that the instant grievance is due to some technical problems and they had tried to shun their responsibility by mere sending a letter on 12.12.2017. We further note the important point in the case HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs Hemant Narayan Devande [2017 (2) CPR (NC)] ‘Bank cannot afford to deficiency in rendering service towards his customers’. It is observed that the OP-2 is negligent and deficient by showing no responsibility to recoup the debited amount due to fraudulent transaction to the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
- The OP-2 will immediately credit Rs. 10,000/- to the account of the complainant with an interest @8% from 30.10.2017 to the date of judgment.
- A compensation of Rs 3,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- is to paid to the complainant by the OP-2.
- The principal amount including the interest and the compensation amount with the litigation cost is to be paid to the complainant within 21 days from the date of this order, failing which a further interest of 10% to be incurred on the compensation amount & the principal amount with interest incurred thereon.
- If on enquiry made by the OP-2, it is found that the whole deficiency lies on OP-1, the OP-2 is empowered to recoup the whole amount paid to the complainant from the OP-1.
The case succeeds on contest through written version and partly on argument in person and is disposed of.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
