DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.257 of 07-06-2011
Decided on 19-01-2012
Jamil Ahmed S/o Late. Md. Israil, aged about 55 years, R/o B-19, NFL Colony, Bathinda.
......Complainant
Versus
Union Bank of India, NFL Branch, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
Union Bank of India, Vidaya Bhawan, Vidan Bhawan, Central Officer, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21,
through its M.D./Chairman/Z.M./G.M./ authorized signatory.
State Bank of India, Service Branch, Sirki Bazar, Bathinda (Incharge of SBI-ATM-Sivian Branch),
through its Branch Head/Branch Manager.
.....Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Talib Hussain, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. S.M.Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1
Sh.Anil Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.3
Opposite party No.2 exparte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having a saving bank account No.554402010015100 with the opposite party No.1 which is branch office of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 has also provided the ATM facility to the complainant and he has been enjoying the said facility provided by the opposite party Nos.1&2. The complainant has alleged that on 30.09.2010, he was in dire need of money so he availed the service of his aforesaid ATM card and tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of the opposite party No.3 but his attempt proved to be futile as no money came out from the ATM. Thereafter, the complainant attempted for second time to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- but again he failed to get money as no money came out from the ATM but the complainant came to know that although no money came out from the machine but both the transactions shown in the saving bank account of the complainant were successful. The complainant immediately made a telephonic call at toll free No.1800-222-244 and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, one transaction of Rs.10,000/- was reversed/returned to his account but the complaint regarding the second transaction is still due/pending and no action was taken in this regard despite repeated requests. The complainant has also sent an e-mail to the opposite parties on 04.05.2011 but in this response, he received a message, 'We have already lodged complaint with ATM cell on 30.09.2010' but no response pertaining to the complaint was given by the opposite parties nor the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been returned to him and despite the fact that a period of more than 8 months has already been elapsed. The complainant has further alleged that as per directions/instructions of Reserve Bank of India, the complainant is entitled to Rs.100/- per day from the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to re-credit the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant, to pay Rs.100/- per day from 08.09.2010 along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the saving bank account number of the complainant is 555402010015100. The opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant was allotted ATM card on his request as per banking system along with instructions manual regarding the use of the ATM. The complainant had operated his ATM card on 30.09.2010 through ATM machine provided by State Bank of India and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited twice. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the fact whether the amounts in question was actually disbursed to the complainant or not, can be clarified and confirmed only by opposite party No.3 to whom the ATM machine in question pertains as the entire system, ATM machine/room, CC TV fixed therein, power to debit/credit the amount in question lies with the opposite party No.3. Their system had to show that the said amount was duly disbursed to the complainant due to which they got credit of the said amount from Union Bank of India as such the alleged problem or deficiency, if any, was not of Union Bank of India. The actual physical verification of cash, CCTV report, inquiry report/actual status report of operation and payment of amount can be disclosed and made by the opposite party No.3 as the said ATM machine run under the administrative supervisory control of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that on 30.09.2010, the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 only about one failure of payment of ATM and not informed regarding the second failure transaction rather it came to the knowledge of the opposite party No.1 only after filing of this complaint. The opposite party No.3 as per procedure, banking norms and system had to give credit wrongly debited amount, as ATM and its system is under their control. The opposite party No.3 had given credit of Rs.10,000/- regarding failure dated 30.09.2010 which was immediately credited into the above said account on 06.10.2010. However, the opposite party No.3 after making inquiry and investigation had given credit of another amount of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.1 on 12.07.2011 and the same was also credited in the account of the complainant on 12.07.2011. So, as and when any ATM operation is made through machine otherwise than of State Bank of India, then Incharge/operator/provider of the said ATM only has got right to debit or credit the transaction made by the account holder. If any dispute arises about such entry or transaction then only said bank/provider of ATM is liable and responsible. As the opposite party No.1 has no power to physically check the records and status of ATM provider bank. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that both the entries of Rs.10,000/- were duly credited in the account of the complainant and nothing is due.
3. The opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No.3. It has no direct link or relation with the complainant and has not received any consideration from him. As per ATM data of the opposite party No.3 dated 30.09.2010, the complainant made two unsuccessful attempts for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- i.e. First attempt at 19:23:39 and the second at 19:25:11 on 30.09.2010 through ATM card of the opposite party Nos.1&2. Both times, the transactions were taken up by the ATM computer and being unsuccessful attempts, the entries were immediately reversed back. The opposite party No.3 has further pleaded that at the close of the day, the cash amount in the ATM machine did not exceed. Since, the transaction of withdrawal by the complainant, was unsuccessful thus no such amount was charged by the opposite party No.3 relating to the said unsuccessful attempts. The complainant had not made any complaint to the opposite party No.3 at any time. The opposite party No.3 has further pleaded that the lapse, if any for not reversing the entry, is on the part of the opposite party Nos.1&2.
4. The opposite party No.2 despite service of summons/notice, has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2.
5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. The contention of the complainant is that on 30.09.2010, he wanted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of the opposite party No.3 but no money came out from the ATM machine. Thereafter, he attempted for the second time, the transaction of Rs.10,000/- was successful but again no money came out from the ATM. The transactions done at both the times were shown successful in the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint on Toll Free No.1800-222-244. A Single transaction of Rs.10,000/- was reversed to the account of the complainant but complaint regarding the second transaction is still due and pending and no action was taken despite repeated requests. He had also sent an e-mail to the opposite parties on 04.05.2011 but in this response, he received a message, 'We have already lodged complaint with ATM cell on 30.09.2010' but no response pertaining to the complaint was given by the opposite parties nor the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been returned to the complainant, despite the fact that a period of more than 8 months has already elapsed. As per directions/instructions of Reserve Bank of India,
“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 entitled to the payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank.”
The opposite parties have failed to resolve the problem within 7 working days as such he is entitled for Rs.100/- per day from the opposite parties.
8. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the ATM card was allotted to the complainant on his request as per banking system along with instructions manual regarding use of the same. The terms and conditions mentioned therein were mandatory for the use of the same. The complainant had operated his ATM card on 30.09.2010 through ATM machine provided by State Bank of India and Rs.10,000/- was debited twice. Whether, the amounts in question was actually disbursed to the complainant or not, can be clarified and confirmed only by the opposite party No.3 to whom the ATM machine in question pertains as the entire system, ATM machine/room, CCTV fixed therein, power to debit/credit the amount in question lies with the opposite party No.3 and their system had shown that the said amount was duly disbursed to the complainant due to which they got credit of the said amount from Union Bank of India. The actual physical verification of cash, CCTV report, inquiry report/actual status report of operation and payment of amount can be disclosed and made by the opposite party No.3 as the said ATM machine run under the administrative supervisory control of the opposite party No.3. On 30.09.2010, the complainant had informed the branch office of the opposite party No.1 only about failure of one transaction of ATM and not informed regarding the second transaction failure rather it came to their knowledge only after filing of this complaint. The complainant had made complaint to the opposite party No.1 branch about one failure of payment dated 30.09.2010 which was duly referred to the ATM grievance Cell of bank. The State Bank of India as per procedure, banking norms and system had to give credit wrongly debited amount, as ATM and its system is under their control. The opposite party No.3 had given credit of Rs.10,000/- regarding failure dated 30.09.2010 which was immediately credited into the above said account on 06.10.2010. The opposite party No.3 after making inquiry, had given credit of another amount of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.1 on 12.07.2011 and the same was immediately credited in the saving bank account of the complainant vide entry dated 12.07.2011. As and when any ATM operation is made through machine otherwise than of Union Bank of India, then Incharge of the said ATM only has got right to debit or credit the transaction made by the account holder. The opposite party No.1 has no power to physically check the records and status of ATM provider bank. Both the entries of Rs.10,000/- each was given by the State Bank of India to the opposite party No.1 and the same were duly credited in the account of the complainant and nothing is due or balance out of transactions in question. The delay, if any, is procedural due to late intimation of second failure entry on the part of the complainant and in giving credit by State Bank of India.
9. The opposite party No.3 has submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No.3 as he has no direct link or concern with the complainant and has not received any consideration from the complainant. On 30.09.2010, the complainant made two unsuccessful attempts for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- i.e. first attempt at 19:23:39 and the second at 19:25:11 on 30.09.2010 and both times, the transactions were taken up by the ATM computer and being unsuccessful attempts, the entries were immediately reversed back. At the close of the day, the cash amount in the ATM machine did not exceed. Since, the transaction of withdrawal by the complainant, was unsuccessful thus no such amount was charged by the opposite party No.3 relating to the said unsuccessful attempts. On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the opposite party Nos.1&2 were under obligation to take up the matter with Switch Centre, Mumbai for redressal of the complaint. The complainant has never lodged any complaint at any time as such there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3.
10. In response to the e-mail sent by the complainant, the reply has been sent by Union Bank of India vide Ex.C-2. The relevant portion of the said e-mail reply dated 04.05.2011 is reproduced:-
“Your complaint, R/Sir, I have withdrawn Rs.10,000/- twice from SBI ATM on 30.09.2010 but did not received any amount which was complained at toll free No.1800222244 several times one of my transaction of Rs.10,000/- was received but Rs.10,000/- still not received, kindly do something and arrange to pay my rest amount as soon as possible.
Our Response: We have already lodged complaint with ATM Cell on 30.09.2010.”
11. The complainant had made two attempts and both were unsuccessful but in saving bank account of the complainant, the amount has been shown to be debited. The first transaction was unsuccessful which was credited in his account on 06.10.2010. On receipt of the complaint, the same was referred to ATM Cell. With regard to second entry, the same was credited on 12.07.2011 in his account. As both the amounts of Rs.10,000/- each, have been credited in the account of the complainant, no dispute remains there.
12. Sh. Sat Pal Goyal, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-1 that if any dispute arises out about such entry or transaction, then only said bank/provider of ATM, is liable and responsible as the opposite party No.1 has no power to physically check the records and status of ATM provider bank. Now, when both the entries in question i.e. of Rs.10,000/- each stands credited in the account of the complainant, the dispute stands settled and nothing remains due or balance out of the transaction in question.
13. The dispute between the parties is that the complainant had attempted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- twice, this amount has been debited in his account twice but the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been credited in his account on 06.10.2010 whereas the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- has been credited in his account on 12.07.2011 i.e. after a period of approximately 9 months from the first credited amount whereas according to circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India bearing No. RBI/2009-2010/100, DPSS No.101/02.10.02/2009-2010, dated July 17, 2009 Annexure-1 regarding Reconciliation of transactions at ATMs failure – Time Limit:-
“Please refer to our letter DPSS No.1424 and 711/02.10.02/2008-2009 dated February 11, 2009 and October 23, 2008 respectively on the captioned subject. In terms of instructions contained therein, banks are required to reimburse to the customers, the amount wrongfully debited on account of failed ATM transactions within a maximum period of 12 days, from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Reserve Bank of India has been receiving number of complaints, regarding the non adherence of banks to the instructions stipulated therein. Further, it has come to our notice that different banks have put in place different cut-off limits for permitting cash withdrawals from/for other bank customers. There issues have been comprehensively reviewed by the Reserve Bank of India. The banks may follow the following directions:-
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.
14. There is delay of 273 days after deducting 12 working days. Thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.100/- per day since debiting the amount till credited in the account of the complainant i.e. from 30.09.2010 to 12.07.2011 minus 12 days. Thus, it will meet the ends of justice, if the complaint is allowed with Rs.2,000/- as cost and the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation @ Rs.100/- per day from 12 days after the withdrawal till credit of the amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e. 12.07.2011.
15. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.27,300/- (From 30.09.2010 to 12.07.2011 i.e. for 285 days minus 12 days = 273 days @ Rs.100/- per day = Rs.27,300/-) as compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done jointly and severally by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
19-01-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
