By Sri. Jose.V. Thannikode, President:
 

The complaint filed against Opposite Parties to refund the amount which is debited twice in her bank account while using the ATM service in single transaction.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant is the Account Holder of SB Account No.6310 of Corporation Bank Coonoor Branch. On 06.06.2011 the Complainant withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand ) only through ATM counter of South Indian Bank at Kalpetta. The first attempt was declined but the second attempt was alright and received cash of Rs.4,000/- only. After few months when the Complainant receiving the bank statement she found that the drawn amount was debited twice from her bank account. When contacted the South Indian Bank, Kalpetta she was informed that the amount is available as “excess cash” with them and would be refunded to corporation Bank as soon as they receive an intimation by e-mail from the Corporation Bank, Coonoor Branch.
 

3. The Complainant send a letter to the Corporation Bank, Coonoor Branch regarding the matter on 14.11.2011 but no replay was received. On her repeated enquiry the Corporation Bank send an e-mail communication to the Complainant. On a repeated enquiry the Corporation Bank authorities intimated the complainant that such complaint should be lodged within 90/180 days. Anyway the Complainant not received the lost amount till 07.02.2012. So the Complainant filed petition before the Forum to direct the Opposite Party's to refund the lost amount with interest at 8% along with compensation and cost.

4. The complaint filed on 07.02.2012. Notices was send to both Opposite Parties and served on 20.02.2012 and 16.02.2012 respectively. Opposite Party's entered appearance and version filed on 28.03.2012 and 1^st Opposite Party stated that 1^st Opposite Party has no knowledge what has happened in the ATM at Kalpetta and further states that they have received the Complaint about the matter only after 161 days of transaction ie 14.11.2011. Though the branch took initiative, the software installed in this electrome journal storage and retrieval system (EJARS) rejected the request due to the delay in filing the complaint and also they took up the matter with South Indian Bank, Kalpetta Branch to get the credit of the amount and further states that the bank will be able to give credit to the account only after receipt of the amount from the South Indian Bank, Kalpetta Branch and prayed that the petition may be dismissed with cost of this Opposite Party.

5. The 2^nd Opposite Party stated in their version that, the Complainant has no privity of contract with this Opposite Party and no human agency involved in this transaction with this Opposite Party and the petitioner has already received the money and also stated that the Complainant is legally bound to operate the ATM Machine, observing the guidelines with much care and caution and there is no evidence or explanation as to how the first transaction was declined and also stated that there is no cause of action against this Opposite Party and no deficiency of service of any kind is from this Opposite Party. Hence the petition may be dismissed as against this Opposite Party.
 

6. On considering the complaint, version and Affidavit filed by the parties the following points are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party's?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- To prove the Complainant’s case in addition to the Complaint she has filed proof affidavit. In the proof affidavit she has stated as stated in the complaint. She has also produced  Exts.A1 and A2 to prove the case. Ext.A1 is the Complainant's Bank account statement dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Corporation Bank, Coonoor Branch to the Complainant which shows the double entry of Rs.4,000/- on 06.06.2011 17.44 Hrs and 17.45 Hrs. Ext.A2 is the copy of e-mail send by Corporation Bank to South Indian Bank mentioning the transaction to have took place at South Indian Bank, Kalpetta Branch which shows that the 1^st Opposite Party had taken initial steps to refund the amount, from the side of the Opposite Parties. 1^st Opposite Party has produced Exts.B1 to B3 documents. Ext.B1 series is the copies of the e-mail send by 1^st Opposite Party to 2^nd Opposite Party. Which shows that the double entry is admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party and steps were taken to refund the amount. Ext.B2 is the book lets along with the card which is supplied to the customer at the time of availing ATM card which containing the conditions for the use of the card. Which shows that, if customer have any complaints regarding transaction through the ATM card, it should intimate the issuing branch in writing within a reasonable period from the date of transaction (maximum 30 days). Ext. B3 is the statement of account of the Complainant issued by the 1^st Opposite Party dated 11.09.2012, which shows that later the1^st Opposite party have credited Rs.4,000/- towards the Complainant's Account on 05.04.2012.

8. From the side of 2^nd Opposite Party he has produced the Ext.B3(a) series documents which is the RBI circular, which shows that “ the time bound for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing bank shall stand reduce from 12 working days to 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Accordingly failure to re credit the customer's account within 7 working days of receipt of the Complainant shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank”.

9. Any customer is entitled to receive such compensation for delay, only if a claim is lodged with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of the transaction. This measure is intended to bring down the instances of disputes in payment of compensation between the issuing and acquiring banks, which shows that any mistake or irregularity happened in the ATM machine or in the procedure in the banking sector, the banker should ratify the defects within 7 days.

10. On perusing the complaint, version, affidavit, deposition and documents produced, it is seen that an amount of Rs.4,000/- is seen debited twice from the Complainant's Account by a mistake and the same day the amount was seen as “excess cash” in the account of 2^nd Opposite Party. The double entry of the transaction was noted by the Complainant only on 10.11.2011 and the same was intimated to 1^st Opposite Party on 14.11.2011. After receiving the complaint, the 1^st Opposite Party noticed the mistakes and took steps to refund the amount to the Complainant. But due to same technical and procedural delay, the 1^st Opposite Party could credit the amount of Rs.4,000/- to the Complainant's account only on 05.04.2012 ie after about 300 days from the date of transaction and about 135 days from the date of complaint.

11. Even though there is a limitation period is specified for lodging complaint in the usage condition card of ATM, the future formalities and procedures were not mentioned in the condition and it also may not intend to forfeiture of the amount or to dragging or to delaying the procedure to refund the amount. The statement in the version of 1^st Opposite Party it is seen that “Though the branch has tried but the claim of the Complainant in the EJARS (Electronic Journal Storage and Retrieval system) which is the software to find out failed transaction, it was rejected because of the delay in filing the request. The complaint was received after 110 days, that is the outer limit fixed for system to retrieve transaction”.

12 At this juncture we should see that the computer, its software including all other automatic machines are created by mankind, and mankind is not created by computer. It is pertinent to not that nobody can blame, a computer/software telling that system is locked, system will not entertain belated complaint etc. All these directions and guidelines were given by the authorities competent, while programing software.

13. They can very well give any option to process the proceedings at any stage giving so many options even any stages of delay, if they noticed any mistake on the side of mankind or from the side of machines in which there is a complaint, more over if the bank authorities in the feel that the disputed amount need to be refunded to the customer and the software is not accepting the request they can very well deposit the amount to the customers account in so many way and that can be adjusted when the formalities are complied.

14. The software can function only as per the directions all ready given, they cannot rectify the defects happened to any mankind or a machine. The man can only to rectify the defects if it is notified and if need to be corrected. Even our grate constitution are have the option to amend any clauses. In case of emergency like natural calamities we cannot stand idle blaming laws and customs. We should apply our mind then and there. And the delay in lodging the complaint is not a will full laches on the part of the Complainant. Any way the Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount to the Complainant, that is why the Opposite Party refunded the amount to the Complainant. But purposefully delayed the refund of the amount to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties stating that there was a “delay in lodging the complaint” is purely a deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. On relying the guidelines of the RBI it is categorically stated that “ the time bound for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing bank shall stand reduce from 12 working days to 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Accordingly failure to recredit the customers account within 7 working days of receipt of the Complaint he shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank”.

15. Any customer is entitled to receive such compensation for delay, only if a claim is lodged

with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of the transaction. This measure is intended to bring down the instance of disputes in payment of compensation between the issuing and acquiring banks”.

16. It means that, within the prescribed time the complainant is lodged the complaint means, within 7 days the defects should be ratified by the banks. If banks fail to do so the aggrieved is entitled to get Rs.100/- per day for the delayed period as compensation. It also does not meant that the customer who lodged complaint after lapse of prescribed time, is not entitled to get refund of the amount or compensation. It means that such customers are not entitled to get such heavy compensation, it means, they are entitled to get less/some compensation.

17. More over regulation/condition and limitation is fixed in any law rule or guidelines, it only meant for speedy and easy disposal of the matters concerned and it is not to harass or denying justice to the innocent customers or consumers. Hence simply failure to recredit the customers account within seven working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint is clearly a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

18. Point No.2:- The Complainant is entitled to get Rs.25/- per day for the delayed recredit of the disputed amount and to get 8% interest for Rs.4,000/- for the delayed recredit and Rs.2,300/- as cost of this petition. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the above circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed and 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty Five) only per day after 7 working days of the lodging of the complaint ie from 23.11.2011 to the recredit date ie 05.04.2012, as compensation and 8% interest for Rs.4,000/- for the above said period ie from 23.11.2011 to 05.04.2012 and Rs.2,300/- (Rupees Two thousand Three hundred) only as cost of this petition to the Complainant. This order is to be complied by the 1^st Opposite Party within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 15^th day of June 2013.

Date of filing:07.02.2012

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N X I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Bindya. K Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. R. Rajagopalan. Manager, Corporation bank, Coonoor.

OPW2. Ealiyas. K.A Manager, South Indian Bank, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Account Statement from 01.04.2011 to 03.11.2011. dt:03.11.2011.

A2. Copy of e-mail sent by Corporation bank to South Indian bank.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of e-mail message.

B2. Brochure.

B3. Account Statement from 01.04.2012 to 30.04.2012. dt:11.09.2012.

B3a series. Copy of Circular.