Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
Complainant Sri Mukul Roy filed the present case against the O.P. No.1, Proprietor, Dutta Jewellery, B.S. Road, Cooch Behar and O.P. No.2, Branch Manager Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sahaberhat Branch, Cooch Behar for financial disputes between them. The brief facts of the case is that due to marriage ceremony of the Complainant Mukul Roy, he purchased gold ornaments for Rs.26,430/- from the shop of O.P. No.1 against which he paid through debit card No. 607073001180961 of Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank being O.P. No.2. Subsequently, the Complainant got a SMS for deduction of Rs.26,430/- from his account but the O.P. No.1 stated that the said amount is not credited to the account of O.P. No.1 and also stated that the said amount would be automatically credited to the account of the Complainant but the said amount was not credited. The O.P. No.1 issued a transaction slip for using the said debit card for a sum of Rs. 26,430/-. The Complainant also paid the cash to O.P. No.1 against the said purchased for which the O.P. No.1 confirmed that the said amount would be credited to the account of the Complainant automatically but the said amount has not been credited till the filing the case. The Complainant updated his S/B pass book and found that the said amount of Rs.26,430/- was credited on 11.12.18. The Complainant informed the detail facts to the O.P. No.2 regarding cash back of Rs.26,430/- on 13.12.18. Subsequently, O.P. No.2 issued transaction statement through that card No. 607070001180960 dated 11.12.18 for Rs.26,430/- by the O.P. No.1. Finally, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the O.Ps on 17.04.19. Due to negligence of the OP the said money has not been credited to the account of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant prayed for an award for Rs.26,430/- alongwith up to date interest, Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
All the O.Ps contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegation. The positive case of O.P. No.2 is that the Branch Manager, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Saheberhat Branch received a complaint from through Mukul Roy on 13.12.18 regarding his disputed amount of Rs.26,430/- against the transaction at ATM No. 607073001180961 on 11.12.18 at Dutta Jewellery. That account was with HDFC bank Cooch Behar. The O.P. No.2 informed the said matter to DIT Head Office, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 13.12.18 again on 05.03.19 there was an email to DIT to look into the matter in this way they made several correspondences with the DIT Head Office Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 05.03.19, 08.04.19, 23.04.19, 29.04.19, 06.05.19, 24.05.19, 30.05.19 and 12.06.19. Finally on 25.06.19 clearing system credited Rs.26,430/- to account No.4000321010000179 and informed to the party and then sent letter on 03.07.19 which was informed to the parties through letter on 03.07.19. So, the O.P. No.1(O.P. No.2?) had no latches in this case. There is no cause of action. The O.P. No.2 claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The O.P. No.1 made out a positive case to the effect that Mukul Roy purchased a product from their store and swiped his debit card twice out of which Rs.26,430/- was debited from his account and reversed immediately and in the second time it was wrongly credited to their account and later it was debited from their account after he raised a complaint with his bank. O.P. No.1 then contacted with HDFC bank card dispute department through email. Mr. Mukul Roys amounts had been deducted from their account on 2nd January, 2019 and they verbally informed him the same. But due to negligence and uncooperative behaviour from his bank i.e. O.P. No.2 Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank his amount was not credited timely. After the Complainant repeatedly requested them to check their bank account, the HDFC bank urged to open the disputed case again. The said amount was thereafter withdrawn from their account and again credited on 28.02.19 and debited on 06.03.19. It was due to the basic protocol maintained by the bank card dispute settlement department. The entire card dispute issue is an internal banking process and the O.P. No.1 as a merchant had nothing to speed up the process or change the protocol. Due to unprofessional and irresponsible approach of O.P. No.2 the said dispute took place.
The O.P. No.3, HDFC bank denied each and every allegation of the complainant and put the Complainant to its strict prove. However, O.P. No.3 claimed that the case is liable to the dismissed with cost.
The pleadings of the four parties in this case suggest that the dispute requires to be adjudicated on the following three major points.
Points for determination
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- 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.
The question as to whether the present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer is the subject matter of discussion under this head No.1.
It is the admitted position that on the unfateful day the Complainant used his debit card with the machine of O.P. No.1 for purchasing gold ornaments for a sum of Rs.26,430/-.
The O.P. No.1, Dutta Jewellery in whose shop the said transaction took place supported the case of the Complainant. However, O.P. No.2 being the banker of the Complainant could not categorically deny about the said transaction. Now the disputed sum relates to Rs.26,430/- and other relief are also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission O.P. No.3 could not categorically deny the fact and allegation of the Complainant other than evasive denial.
Thus having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record this Commission comes to the findings that the present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer subject to ascertainment of the main relief to be decided under Point Nos. 2 & 3.
Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.2 & 3.
The Complainant categorically stated that he used his debit card against which he had account under the O.P. No.2 Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sahaberhat Branch, Cooch Behar.
On that unfateful day of 11.12.18 the Complainant purchased gold ornaments from the O.P. No.1 shop Dutta Jewellery for Rs.26,430/- and made payment through his card. Thereafter, the said amount was debited from his account through the O.P. No.1. The said Rs.26,430/- was debited from his account and reversed immediately and in the second time it was wrongly credited to the account of O.P. No.1 but subsequently it was debited from the account of O.P. No.1. Consequently, the Complainant had to pay the said sum of Rs.26,430/- to the O.P. No.1. But despite debiting the said money from his account it was not subsequently credited.
The O.P. No.2 being the banker of the Complainant could not deny the said fact. On the contrary after being informed about the said anomaly of the said transaction the O.P. No.2 informed the matter to DIT HO Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 13.12.18 and subsequently on different dates there were different correspondences between the O.P. No.2 bank and DIT HO but the matter could not be sorted out for a long time and it remains unresolved till 03.07.19. Finally on 25.06.19 clearing system credited Rs.26,430/- to account No. 4000321010000179. The Complainant denied the said fact.
But the O.P. No.2 could not file any document to substantiate that it was credited with in due time. From the documents filed by HDFC bank it is found that there was a withdrawal of Rs.26,430/- on 02.01.19 from the account of O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.3 also admitted that the second transaction was reversal transaction and the O.P. No.1 had not received any pay out for the same and also funds were not lying with them.
Thus this document and the pleadings and the evidence of the parties clearly make it evident that the claim of the Complainant is genuine and based on document. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that due to the negligence of the O.P. No.2 he suffered financial loss as well as mental pain and agony.
Ld. Defence Counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that there may be fault due to technical reasons over which the O.P. No.2 bank had no control because the internet banking uses to function on the basis of availability of network. The transaction might not be properly successful at the right moment but finally it was resolved.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant counter argued that the O.P. No.2 could not file any document to substantiate that they took appropriate steps within reasonable time. They could not file a scrap of paper to establish their plea.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence in the case record and having given due consideration to the respective argument of the parties the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainant successfully proved the case against the O.Ps.
Accordingly Point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered in affirmative on behalf of the Complainant. Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/72/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.26,430/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 11.12.18 till the date of payment, Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony and deficiency in service.
The O.P. No.2 is directed to pay Rs.41,430/- (Rupees forty one thousand four hundred and thirty only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the entire awarded money will carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of the Final Order till the realization thereof.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
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 is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
