Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The grievance of the Complainant which dragged him to the Commission is reproduced briefly to the effect that the Complainant had an Account No. 52180043022411 with the O.P.-1 Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank, Dinhata Branch. O.P.-1 issued an ATM Card having No. 5089 6838 6065 4009. Due to urgent need of money the Complainant used his ATM card in the ATM of O.P.-2 SBI at Nigamnagar under the Transaction ID: IBBN000209013 on 09.07.2019 at about 14:39 to withdraw Rs. 6,000/-. After pushing suddenly the ATM was stopped and the petitioner did not receive the said money of Rs. 6,000/- but he received a message that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was debited from his account. Subsequently, as per instruction of the OP, he sent an email to Kolkata RBI and lodged a complaint but till date the said money has not been credited to his account. The Complainant also filed a written complaint to the O.P.-1 on 17.08.2019 but despite receiving the same he did not reply. Hence the present case is filed. The cause of action arose on 09.07.2019, 17.08.2019, 20.08.2019 and 16.12.2019. The Complainant prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs. 6,000/- along with up-to-date interest, Rs. 10,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental pain and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The OP contested the case. The case is being heard ex-parte against the O.P.-2. The O.P.-2 contested the case by filing W/V denying each and every allegations of the Complainant. The positive defense case of the O.P.-1 in a nutshell is that O.P.-1 and O.P.-2 are separate and independent entities and guided by the rules of RBI. The O.P.-1 cannot be held liable for the deficiency of service by the O.P.-2. The present case is filed which is false and frivolous. On receipt of the complaint of the Complainant, the O.P.-1 raised a charge back/refund request to O.P.-2 on 10.07.2019 to get the status of the said transaction. The O.P.-2 rejected the same on 18.07.2019 indicating that the said transaction was successful. The O.P.-1 in pursuance to the said information communicated it to the Complainant against which a pre-arbitration was held which was also rejected by O.P.-2 on the ground that the transaction was successful. Thus O.P-1 took all steps to redress the grievance of the Complainant. The O.P.-1 therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
The specific allegation and the denial thereof as well as the defense case of the O.P.-1 led this Commission to ascertain the following points in dispute.
Points for determination
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the activities of the OP amount to deficiency in service?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 :-
After perusing the entire case record it transpires that the O.P.-2 State Bank of India Dinhata Branch preferred not to contest the case and accordingly the case is heard ex-parte against the O.P.-2.
The O.P.-1 Bandhan Bank, Dinhata Branch denied and disputed the major allegations but did not plead that the Complainant is not a Consumer under them. However having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence in the case record I am of the opinion that the Complainant is a Consumer under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered on behalf of the Complainant.
Point No.2 :-
This point relates to ascertainment as to whether the activities of the OP amount to deficiency in service. It is the admitted position that the Complainant Madan Rabi Das is a Customer of the O.P.-1 Bank. There is no denial to the fact by the O.P.-2 that the Complainant used the ATM card with the ATM kiosk of O.P.-2. The Complainant in order to establish the claim, filed the hard copy of the SMS showing that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was debited from the Account ending with last 5 digits 22411 which is the Account Number of the Complainant as 52180043022411. The OP did not deny that the ATM card was not used on the given date and time. On the contrary, the O.P.-1 admitted that on receipt of the complaint the O.P.-1 raised a charge book/refund request to O.P.-2 on 10.07.2019 which is just after 09.07.2019 being the date of the disputed transaction. The O.P.-2 did not come forward to establish that the transaction was successful.
The O.P.-1 also did not file any J.P. Log where from it could be ascertained that the said transaction on the given date and time was successful or not. From the passbook of the Complainant it also transpires that on 09.07.2019 a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was debited from the account of the Complainant by means of use of ATM. Neither the O.P.-1 nor the O.P.-2 cross examined the Complainant against the specific evidence in regard to use of ATM by the Complainant and failure to receive the said sum of Rs. 6,000/- on that particular date and time.
Regard being also had to the evidence of the O.P.-1 inter-alia that the Bank (O.P.-1) took all possible measures in order to resolve the grievance of the Complainant.
The oral testimony as above on the part of the O.P.-1 also justifies the grievance of the Complainant.
It is further evident from the case record that the Complainant left no stone unturned for redressal of his grievance through different correspondences and finally through the mediation before the C A Department, Cooch Behar which ultimately failed.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence in the case record and in the backdrop of the observation made herein above it stands well proved that the Complainant did not get the sum of Rs. 6,000/- by using ATM card on the inauspicious date of 09.07.2019 but it was debited from his account. The entire activities of the O.P.-1 and O.P.-2 tantamount to deficiency in service.
Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered on behalf of the Complainant.
Point Nos.3 & 4 :-
Previously I have ascertained both the Point No. 1 and 2 on behalf of the Complainant. Point No. 3 and 4 are the corollary to Point No. 1 and 2 since these issues are decided on behalf of the Complainant. So Issue No.3 and 4 are also decided on behalf of the Complainant.
Consequently, the case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complaint Case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Complainant do get an award of Rs.6,000/- as refund of the amount unfairly deducted, Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation. The O.P.-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- to the Complainant within thirty days of passing the order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. on the awarded sum. O.P.1 shall be at liberty to recover the said money from the O.P.-2 as per the Banking Regulation Act.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
