Haryana

Ambala

CC/318/2015

Harbhajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

K.C.Jain

21 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 318 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 06.11.2015.

                                                          Date of decision   : 21.12.2017

 

Harbhajan Singh aged 64 years son of late Mehar Singh resident of house No.1269/1, Ward No.12, Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala City.

 

  ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1.Union Bank of India, Court Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

2.State Bank of India, Court Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

 

 ….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.K.C.Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                   Ms.Poonam Singh, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh.U.S.Chauhan, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER  

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs with the averments that he is having saving bank account No.387302010004243 with OP No.1  alongwith ATM facility vide card bearing No.5576643873002455/5-10. On 17.06.2015 he withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- from ATM of OP No.2 at 6.30 PM vide slip TXN  No.6504. In the said withdrawal balance have been shown as   Rs.95187.78/- whereas it should have been Rs.105187.78/-. The complainant as per the directions of guard present over there, got the statement of account slip from ATM and then came to know that transactions of Rs.10,000/- has been shown twice on the said date and time. The complainant moved an application dated 17.06.2015 to OP No.1 qua wrongly showing of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter the complainant moved another applications dated 14.07.2015 and 09.08.2015 to OP No.1 and also contacted OP No.2 but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.                On notice OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum because as on 17.06.2015 he had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- at 6.14 P.M. and further withdrawn Rs.10,000/- at 6.30 P.M.  The withdrawal of the amounts had been made after duly putting PIN which was uniquely in the knowledge of complainant and the ATM card is also in his physical possession. If he was having such problem he could have demanded footage of CCTV from the concerned bank on the same day.  The transaction was made from the ATM installed by OP no.2 and both these transactions are reflected  in the receipt provided by the complainant.  The complainant was having balance of Rs.1,15,187.79 and after two transactions of Rs.10,000/- each the balance amount come to Rs.95,187/-.There was no connectivity failure and the complainant has filed the present complaint just to grab the amount of Rs.10,000/- from it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer and suppression of material facts etc. The complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from ATM of answering OP on 17.06.2015 at about 6.30 p.m. but the transaction had not been successful and immediately reverse entry of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from its ATM.  The amount was credited in the account of the complainant within few seconds after the transaction. The present complaint has been filed just to mislead the Forum. Other contentions have been controverted. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure RB to Annexure RD, Annexure R1 and Annexure R2.

 4.               We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

5.                The complainant has come with the plea that at the time of using ATM for the first time there was Rs.1,15,187.79 in his account but after withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- the balance amount has been shown as Rs.95187.79/-. Perusal of the case file reveals that the Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that two transactions of Rs.10000/- each have been made by the complainant and both the transactions have been successful, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.95187.79/- has been shown rightly. OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had used ATM facility on 17.06.2015 at 6.30 P.M. but when the transaction could not succeed then the reverse entry of Rs.10,000/- was immediately made in the account of the complainant, however, thereafter the complainant withdrew Rs.10,000/-.  Perusal of copy of log book of ATM transaction  (Annexure R1 and Annexure R2) prepared by OP No.2  reveals that the transaction made at 6.14 P.M. has been successful vide RR No.6497 whereas the transaction made at 6.30 at RR No.6504 on 17.06.15 has remained unsuccessful and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was also reversed back in the bank account of the complainant. It is strange that the OP No.2 as per its version has made the reverse entry of Rs.10,000/- in the bank account of the complainant but the account maintained by the Op No.1 shows the balance amount of Rs.95187.79 instead of 1,05,187/-.

6.                          During the course of arguments the Op No.2 has taken the stand contrary to the reply as well as log book Annexure R1 and Annexure R2 that both the transactions have been successful and the entry qua reversal of amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of complainant mentioned at Annexure R2 has been shown wrongly. The complainant vide Annexure C1 (application dated  18.06.2015), Annexure C4 (application dated 14.07.2015) and Annexure (application dated 19.08.2015) requested the Op No.1 for correction of the entry as well as adjustment/paying of Rs.10,000/- to him but it is strange it did not bother to entertain the grievance of the complainant because there is nothing on the case file to show that what action the Op No.1 has taken on the application of the complainant and even it has not disclosed the status of that applications. In the instructions of RBI issued to all the banks vide letter bearing no. RBI/2010/11/547 it has been intimated that Reconciliation  of failed transactions at ATMs para No.2 of which says that “the time limit for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing banks shall stand reduced 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 complaint shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs. 100/- per days by the issuing bank,which was issued in continuation of their earlier letter DPSS No.711/02.10.02/2008-2009,1424/02.10.02/2008-2009 and 101/02.10.02/2009-2010 dated October 23, 2008, February 11, 2009 and July 17,2009 respectively on the subject above. The purpose of amending the earlier instructions was continuously monitoring the implementation of various directions  by the banks with a view  to further improve the further efficiency of Operations.  RBI has further taken the view that any customer is entitled to receive such compensation above for delay only if a claim is lodged with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of transition.  In the present case the complainant had made transactions after 6 p.m. (after working hours of the bank) on 17.06.2015 and when the transactions could not successful then on the next date i.e. 18.06.2015 he had moved an application Annexure C1 to the Op No.1 either to correct the balance in the said saving account of the complainant or to pay him Rs.10,000/- but the Op no.1 not taken any action. The Op No.1 in its reply has taken another plea that the complainant should have applied for CCTV footage to show that the transactions were not made. The Ops are banking institutes and such like behavior, act and conduct from them is un-expectable because instead of asking the complainant for CCTV footage the Op No.1 had to made efforts after making correspondence with the Op No.2 to preserve and produce the CCTV footage before this Forum but it has not been done so.  It is pertinent to mention here that now the government is focusing on e-banking transactions in order to provide better and effective facilities to the customers but in the present case the Ops are trying to escape from their liabilities because they have failed to render the services with reasonable skill and care during the course of executing a customer’s order. It was the duty of the OPs to carry out a thorough investigation to bring out the real picture. The Ops instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant are trying to shift the burden of the lapses/wrongs done by them on the shoulder of the complainant without his being at fault.   

7.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances it is established on the case file that the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant, therefore, present complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and the Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within a period of thirty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)      To pay Rs.10,000/- (being unsuccessful transaction) alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  

(ii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment etc.

                             Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. Order be complied with jointly and severally. If the above directions are not complied with within stipulated period of thirty days then the complainant is liberty to take legal action against the OPs under section 27 of C.P Act.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 21.12.2017    

                                                                                                                                          

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)      (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                                Member                             President