Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/4

Harminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yes Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Kashyap, Adv.

03 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                               Consumer Complaint No.04 of 2021

                                              Date of institution: 08.01.2021

                                              Date of Decision: 03.12.2021

 

Harminder Singh, aged about 39 years son of Surinder Singh, resident of House No.60-A, Piara Singh Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

…….Complainant

Versus

 

Yes Bank, Branch at Bela Road, Rupnagar, through its Manager/Branch Manager                                                      

……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Sh. Ranjit Singh, President.

                       Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:    Sh. Rajesh Kashyap, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Ashish Kumar, Adv. for O.P.

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the OP is providing online transaction facility to its consumers/customers and hence the complainant is also availing the same. On 11.12.2020, while availing the online transaction facility, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.4500/- from his own account  No.014698400000424 to another account on the name of his brother namely Gurminder Singh. It is opt to note here that the complainant mobile number i.e. 90413-57040 is registered with the OP. Due to the negligency of the OP, the amount of Rs.4500/- was debited from the complainant saving account but the same was not transfer/credited in the account of brother of the complainant till today.  Due to which, the complainant contacted the OP regarding the above said fact by approaching its branch situated at Bela Road, Rupnagar. One employee of the OP entertained with the complainant regarding his grievance and the said employee of OP suggested the complainant to make a request on customer complaint number of the bank given on website. On 16.12.2020, the complainant made a call on the online customer complaint number as suggested by the employee of the OP but the complainant was stunned when he came to know that his saving account number became empty as his saving balance was cleverly got transferred to some unknown account number. Then again the complainant approached the OP and he was asked to make written request. The amount from the complainant saving account was cunningly/cleverly got transferred to some unknown account in two separate transaction i.e. Rs.498/- and Rs.4500/- respectively. That OP did not bother even to inform the complainant by sending SMS message regarding the above said transaction for which the OP was duty bound to inform its customer. Hence, the complainant suffered a financial loss of Rs.4500+Rs.498+4500 in total and OP is responsible for the same as the complainant did the above said transaction on the asking of the employee of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P. the CC has sought the following relief:-

1. The O.P. be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation 
2. To pay Rs.10,000/ as litigation expenses.
3. To interest @ 18% on the above mention amount.

The complaint of the CC is signed and also verified.

2.        In reply, the OP has stated that the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency and the complainant cannot be allowed to get unjust benefit out of his own negligence and callousness with which he did the online transactions. As admitted by the complainant during his interaction with the Customer Service officials of the OP, complainant had disputed 3 UPI based payment transaction, amounting to Rs.9498 dated 11.12.2020 and 16.12.2020 respectively. These transaction were done by the complainant through UPI payments application offered by the paytm. It is submitted that pursuant to receipt of compliant of the complainant, the officials of the OP had a detailed discussion with him on 22.12.2020 and during the discussion, the complainant had informed that initial transaction of Rs.4500/- dated 11.12.2020 was unsuccessful and hence instead of trying to contact the bank officials on the contact numbers mentioned on the website of yes bank, the complainant negligently google searched the contact number of yes bank and called on a random number retrieved from google search on 16.12.2020. It is further submitted that upon trying to seek details of the said number the complainant was unable to provide the number to the officials of the OP. The complainant further informed the OP that the fake customer service representative assured him about the refund and instructed him to follow specific set of instructions to get the refund. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

3.           The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 along   with documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP. has tendered affidavit of Sh. Harsimrat Singh, Branch Manager, Ex.OP1 closed the evidence.  

4.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, carefully and minutely.

5.           The learned counsel for the complainant argued that due to negligence of the OP, the amount of Rs.4500/- was debited from the complainants saving account but the same was not transfer/credited in the account of brother of the complainant till today. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.

6.           The learned counsel for the OP argued that the complainant cannot be allowed to get unjust benefit out of his own negligence and callousness with which he did the online transaction. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.           We have heard rival contentions of the parties and after appreciating the facts and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that as there might be some contract or understanding between the OP Bank and paytm, therefore, for any negligence or deficiency in service even by paytm, the OP is variously liable and also from the fact that the complainant had reported the matter to the OP bank immediately after the above said occurrence. The OP bank is responsible for not taking any action to redress the grievance of the complaint. Thus, the present complaint stands allowed with the direction to the OP to refund Rs. 9498/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the amount debited from the account of the complainant. We further order that the O.P. to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to comply with the above said order within the period of 20 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

December 03, 2021

(Ranjit Singh)

 

                                            

(Ranvir Kaur)