FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER.
This is a complaint case u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case is that the Complainants Sri Sailesh Prasad Mandal son of Late Nishkanta Mandal and Smt. Sucheta Mandal wife of Sri Sailesh Prasad Mandal are having a Savings Bank Account being No.460902010002769 with Union Bank of India, Salt Lake City Branch and had a Debit Card bearing No. 4520554609006381. On 13.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was debited in six installments along with ATM usage charge of Rs.34.50/-. But the amount was not withdrawn by the complainants and on enquiry with their Bank it was detected that the said amount was withdrawnfrom different ATM namely ICICI Bank, SBI, Syndicate Bank, and Indusind Bank located at Dehradun while the complainants were in Kolkata. On 14.06.2017 the complainants lodged a GDR in this regard before the O/C, Bidhan Nagar (East) Police Station. On 14.06.2017 the complainants informed Union Bank of India regarding this Fraud. But the Bank did not take any step for which the complainants lodged a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman on 26.12.2017. Banking Ombudsman thereafter passed the following Award on 30.06.2018 :-
“Indusind Bank to pay Rs.10,000/- and Union Bank of India to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainants against the disputed transactions that took place on 13.06.2017 and 14.06.2017.” Accordingly Indusind Bank paid Rs.10,000/- but the Union Bank of India did not pay till date. The complainant issued reminder letter to the Banking Ombudsman on 09.07.2018 under copy to the AGM,RBI, Kolkata. The complainant also issued a reminder letter informing non compliance of the Order of Ombudsman to the AGM,RBI on 19.09.2018 copy forwarded to Union Bank of India. Finding no alternatives, the complainants has come forward to the Forum praying for justice with the prayers as mentioned in the complaint petition.
The case has been proceeded ex parte against the OP 1 i.e. Union Bank of India . As such there is no submission on behalf of OP 1. The OP 2 RBI, Office of the Ombudsman has contested the case by filing WV. As per their submission the complainants have no cause of action or bonafide reason to implead the answering OP as one of the opposite parties in the instant case. The main grievance of the complainants are against their Banker i.e. Union Bank of India and not against the OP 2. The OP 2 is no way concerned with the alleged complaint. The OP 2 is a Quasi Judicial Authority and it was created pursuant to the decision by the Govt. of India to enable resolution of complaints of customers of Bank relating to certain services rendered by the Banks and to facilitate the satisfaction of settlement of such complaints. The said Banking Ombudsman Scheme was an Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism which was optional and voluntary. Moreover, there is no specific complaint against the OP 2. As such, the complaint case should be dismissed against the OP 2.
Points for Determination
On the pleading of parties the following points have necessarily come up for determination.
- Whether the OP 1 and/or the OP 2 have got deficiency in service.
- Whether the OP 1 and/or the OP 2 are indulging unfair trade practice.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief/reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons
Points Nos. 1 to 3 :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Complainant and the OP 2 have tendered their Evidence on Affidavit. The OP 2 has filed the reply of the complainants against their Questionnaire to the complainants. The OP 2 has submitted their BNA also.
We have travelled over all the documents placed on record.
Facts remain that there were fraudulent withdrawals of Rs. 50,000/- by six installments from the Savings Bank Account No.460902010002769 of the complainants with Union Bank of India, Salt Lake City Branch , Kolkata on 13.06.2017 and on 14.06.2017. On enquiry it was known that the same amount was withdrawn from different ATMs namely ICICI Bank, SBI, Syndicate Bank and Indusind Bank located at Dehradun while the complainants were in Kolkata. The matter was brought to the notice of the concerned Authorities of the Union Bank of India. Finding no result the complainants lodged a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman on 26.12.2017. The Banking Ombudsman after completion of necessary proceedings passed an Award on 30.06.2018 vide Award No.5 dated 30.06.2018. The Award passed is reproduced herein below.
“ Union Bank of India may pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants against the five disputed transactions that took place on 13.06.2017 and 14.06.2017.”
The disputed transaction amounting to Rs.10,000/- was however paid by the Indusind Bank to the complainants in the meanwhile as evident from the Award and from the submission of the complainants. The award was made known to the Union Bank of India but the said Bank did not pay the amount to the complainants as per the Award. For non complying the order of the Ombudsman the complainants have filed the instant case to the Consumer Forum. As evident from the Order No. 05 Dated 16.10.2019 of the Commission it is observed that the case has been proceeded ex parte against the OP 1.
Under the above situation we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP 1.
Thus all the points are answered in the affirmative .
In the result, the Complaint succeeds.
Ordered
That the Complaint case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP 1 and dismissed against the OP 2 with the following directions.
- The OP 1 is directed to pay the sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants with simple interest at the rate of6 percent from the date of passing Award of the Banking Ombudsman till its realization .
- The OP 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainants as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants.
- The OP 1 is also directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the Complainants.
- The above orders are to be complied with by the OP 1 within a period 15 days from the date of receipt of the order else the Complainant will be at liberty to put the order in execution as per rules.
Order be communicated to the Complainant as per rules and the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.
