Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/939/2019

Jaanvi Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yes Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Keshav Gupta, Anna Bansal, Stuti Bamba, Nitika Sharma

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/939/2019
Date of Institution	:	16/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	13/09/2022

 

1. Jaanvi Kapoor, daughter of Malvika Kapoor, aged 17 years, resident of House No.330, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009.
2. Malvika Kapoor wife of Rajesh Kapoor, aged 46, resident of House No.330, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Yes Bank through its Managing Director, SCO No.151-152, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160017.
2. Branch Manager, Yes Bank, SCO No.151-152, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160017.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Stuti Bamba, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Deepak Jain, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, complainant No.1 was selected for international student programme namely Duke University Summer Academy for High School Students Programme on the basis of merit wherein a 20 days programme was to be held in United States of America (USA). Accordingly, complainant No.2 approached the OPs for opening an account in the name of her daughter (complainant No.1) and issuance of a globally working debit card so that she does not have to face any troubles for money and the representatives of the OPs assured regarding the same.  Once the visa was approved on 6.6.2019, the bank account was made operational by depositing the amount of ₹70,000/-.  However, when the complainant tried to swipe the card for the first time during her visit to USA, the transaction was declined.  Complainant No.2 contacted the OPs through email as well as personally, but, despite their assurances the card was not made operational and due to that, complainant No.1 was left in lurch in a foreign country.  Complainant No.2 was made to run from pillar to post and seek money from others including the University staff and other acquaintances for day to day needs of her daughter which not only gave sleepless nights to complainant No.2 but also spoiled the entire Summer Academy Programme. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainants have filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and admitted that complainant No.1 applied for opening bank account.  Averred the debit card for minor has inbuilt security features and could not be operated internationally without formal request to make it operational and the request was made on 28.6.2019 by guardian of complainant upon which card was permitted for international transaction on 29.6.2019 and transactions were performed on 2.7.2019 and 4.7.2019.  Maintained since card was issued in minor account, only domestic transactions were permitted upto determined limit per day. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of consumer complaint.
3.     Replication was filed by the complainants and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainants in the present consumer complaint is that despite completing all the formalities of the OP bank for the purpose of opening bank account and issuance of a globally working debit card, the OP bank totally failed in providing the required services at the right time resulting in absolute inconvenience and harassment to complainant No.1, who was deprived of usage of her own money to meet her day to day needs in an alien/foreign land, and also her mother (complainant No.2) who had to run from pillar to post to arrange money for her daughter. 
7.     The stand taken by the OP-bank is that undoubtedly the debit card was issued to complainant No.1, but, the same had inbuilt security features and could not be operated internationally without formal request by the complainants to make it operational.  Further it has been contended that the request made by complainant No.2 on 28.6.2019 was accepted and thereafter the card was made operational and transactions were performed successfully.
8.     After going through the documents on record it is abundantly clear from the affidavit of the complainant that she got the account opened after the advice of the bank officials only to get a globally acceptable debit card and, therefore, specially deposited an amount of ₹70,000/- in the aforesaid account. But when complainant No.1 (a young girl of 18 years and daughter of complainant No.2) went to USA for 20 days summer academy programme, she could not make the transactions through the said ATM card. We can clearly estimate the pain of a mother whose young girl was left in lurch in a foreign country with no money to spend for her daily needs. This action of the OPs gave sleepless nights to the complainants and complainant No.2, while in India, had to run from pillar to post to arrange money for her daughter who was sitting at a far away place in a foreign land.
9.     It is out of our understanding how the bank could not understand the necessity of its consumers who had explained their situation that complainant No.1 had to go abroad and for that purpose only they are seeking internationally operational debit card. The opening of the bank account and thereafter issuance of a globally acceptable debit card by OPs itself is sufficient proof that the complainants had conveyed the purpose of opening the account to the OPs. 
10.     We are of the considered opinion that a mother (complainant No.2) who is sending her 18 years old daughter abroad alone for the first time cannot be careless in arranging for all her basic needs and not telling the OP/bank that the card should be operational in USA. Resultantly, the allegations of the OPs are baseless and devoid of any merit. Hence, the act of the OPs for not providing proper services proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹5,000/-  to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/09/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member