This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 25-08-11 in the presence of Sri P.L.N. Reddy, advocate for complainant and of                Sri J. Nageswara Rao, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,000/- plus interest from the date of complaint till realization besides costs.

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

         The complainant is having account bearing No.11328105808 with the 1^st opposite party besides ATM card bearing No.62201807827000-23495.   The complainant is suffering from paralysis.   The complainant got an appointment with a doctor at Hyderabad on 20-09-09.   The complainant booked train tickets for himself and other family members.    On 19-09-09 the complainant went ATM counter in Narasaraopet to withdraw Rs.6,000/- and inserted his ATM in the machine and followed the instructions to withdraw the amount.   But the complainant did not receive any amount from ATM counter.   The amount of Rs.6,000/- was debited to the complainant’s account on 22-09-09.    The complainant gave a report to the 2^nd opposite party by enclosing ATM slip. The complainant gave report to customer’s service branch on 06-01-10 on the advice of the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The complainant lodged a written report with the 1^st opposite party and the same was registered as                      AT 782725947.   Inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties               1 and 2 did not respond properly. Under those circumstances, the complainant approached Ombudsman.   The Ombudsman on 04-12-10 enquired into the matter and passed an order requiring the opposite parties to pay compensation as per the circulars of RBI.   On 12-02-10 the Secretary of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad informed the complainant that the amount of Rs.6,000/- was credited to the complainant’s account.  The complainant on 16-02-10 issued notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 demanding compensation.   On 18-02-10 the 1^st opposite party through his letter expressed regrets.   The complainant had to cancel his reservation tickets as unable to withdraw amount from ATM.   The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed memo adopting the version of the 1^st opposite party and its contents in brief are hereunder:

   The complaint is not maintainable for claiming exclusive compensation.   The opposite parties are not personally aware of the allegation of the complainant about not getting Rs.6,000/- from ATM.    The opposite parties being instrumentalities of the State generously came forward and paid Rs.6,000/- even though there was no proof.     The petitioner has to prove about the reservation of the tickets at Hyderabad and his appointment with doctor.   Claiming Rs.10,000/- as compensation for delay caused in receiving Rs.6,000/- is ridiculous.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the complainant were marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable claiming compensation alone?
2. And if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

6.     POINTS 1 & 2:-    The complainant having account with the 1^st opposite party and ATM card are not in dispute.    Likewise exchange of notices between the complainant and the opposite parties (Exs.A-6 and A-7).   The complainant approaching Ombudsman and the Ombudsman passing an order on 04-02-10 and the opposite parties crediting Rs.6,000/- to the account of the complainant on 11-02-10 are also not in dispute (Ex.A-1 to A-3).   

7.    Under Ex.A-2 the Banking Ombudsman on 04-02-10 advised the opposite parties 1 and 2 to compensate the complainant as per the provisions of Reserve Bank of India circular DPSSNo.101/02.10.02/2009-10, dated 17-07-09 for the period the complainant remained out of funds.  After that only the opposite parties credited Rs.6,000/- to the complainant’s account. 

8.    As the opposite parties did not follow the advice given by the Banking Ombudsman under Ex.A-2 the complainant got issued Ex.A-4 notice.    The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that it is the complainant who refused to receive the amount to his account and relied on the contents of Ex.A-4.    The relevant portion in Ex.A-4 is extracted below for better appreciation:              

9.      The above recitals in Ex.A-4 are to the affect that the opposite parties 1 and 2 were intended to credit Rs.6,000/- under suspense account for which the complainant regretted.    The above recitals in Ex.A-4 in no way help the opposite parties because they want to credit Rs.6,000/- under suspense account. 

10.   The credit of Rs.6,000/- on 11-02-10 to the complainant’s account clearly established that there was deficiency of service.   The opposite parties answered the grievance of the complainant when approached the Banking Ombudsman.   The complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation only because the opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               credited Rs.6,000/- for their deficiency.    No doubt this Forum cannot sit as an executing Court to implement the orders of the Banking Ombudsman.   The Banking Ombudsman under Ex.A-2 advised the 1^st opposite party to pay compensation as per the circular of RBI referred to.  A duty is cast on the banks to follow the circulars issued by RBI.               The Banking Ombudsman were established to answer the grievances of customers.   Under those circumstances the contention of the opposite parties regarding maintainability of the complaint is devoid of merit.

11.   The circular issued by RBI on 17-07-09 vide DPSS No.101/02.10.2009 framed certain directives and the Banks may follow them.   The directives are as follows:

            “i) it is mandatory for the banks to reimburse the customers, the amount wrongfully debited on account of failed ATM transactions, within a maximum period of 12 working days from the date of receipt of the customer complaint.

            ii) For any failure to re-credit the customers account within 12 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint, the bank shall pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the aggrieved customer.   This compensation shall be credited to the customer’s account automatically without any claim from the customer on the same day when the bank affords the credit for the failed ATM transaction.

            iii) The issuer bank is entitled to claim such compensation paid to the customer from the acquirer bank, if the delay is attributed to the latter.   By the same logic the ATM network operators shall compensate the banks for any delay on their part.

            iV) Banks shall extend the scope of concurrent audit to cover cases of delay in reimbursing the customers for failed ATM transactions.

            V) Each bank shall place a quarterly review of ATM transactions to its Board of directors, indicating inter alia, the quantum of penalties paid, reasons thereof and the actions taken to avoid recurrence of such instances.   A copy of the note along with the observations of the Board shall be forwarded to the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Payment & Settlement Systems, Mumbai”.    

12.    The complainant averments revealed that he informed the                  1^st opposite party on 22-09-09 regarding debit entry of Rs.6,000/- in his account though not withdrawn from ATM on 19-09-09.    It is but natural conduct of a person to bring it to the notice of that banker who issued ATM card.  

13.   The above guidelines revealed that it is  mandatory for the Banks to reimburse the customers within a maximum period of                       12 working days from the date of receipt of the customer/complaint the amount wrongly debited on account of failed ATM transactions and in case of failure the Bank shall pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the aggrieved customer.   In this case 12 working days expired by 09-10-09 in view of Sundays and public holidays.    In view of the said circular the opposite parties have to pay Rs.100/- per day from 10-10-09 to 10-02-10 amounting to Rs.11,300/- (for 113days).  Neither the doctor’s appointment nor the complainant reserving tickets to Hyderabad is necessary to consider the deficiency of service.  If the   1^st opposite party had expressed regrets as mentioned in Ex.A-7 reply before the order of Ombudsman the contention of the opposite parties is having considerable force.   If the banks also do not follow the advice of Banking Ombudsman it certainly amount to deficiency of service.   On that ground the complaint is maintainable.   Under those circumstances the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant as advised by the Banking Ombudsman under Ex.A-2.   The amount of Rs.10,000/- claimed by the complainant is reasonable.   In view of the afore mentioned discussion we answer these points against the opposite parties.

14.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to payRs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
3. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order  failing which the amounts mentioned in clause No.1 carries interest at 9% p.a. till payment.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 29th day of August, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:       NIL

                                                                                      PRESIDENT