Delhi

East Delhi

CC/49/2018

BEER BAHADUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.O.B. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 49/2018

 

	BEER BAHADUR S/O SH. CHITRA BAHADUR, R/O CONSOLIDATE PAPER PACKAGE, W-46, SECTOR-11, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH	….Complainant
Versus
	BANK OF BARODA THROUGH ITS BANK MANAGER, BRANCH AT MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE – 3, DELHI - 110096	……OP

 

Date of Institution	:	12.02.2018
Judgment Reserved on	:	30.05.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	06.06.2023

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

JUDGMENT

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP for deficiency of service on its part alleging the withdrawal of money from his bank account, without his information and knowledge.   

1. It is the case of the complainant that on 05.09.2015, an amount of Rs.17,000/- has been withdrawn from his bank account with OP without his information and knowledge, though he had never given or disclosed his bank account number, mobile number or card number to anyone. He has complained to the bank officials to check the status of his account and to inform him how the money was withdrawn from his account without his permission, but no positive answer was received from the OP. Despite several requests and visits to the OP bank, neither complainant’s problem was addressed nor any response was received from them. The complainant filed complaints with OP as well as with the senior officials of OP on 08.11.2017 and also sent a legal notice dated 02.01.2018 through his counsel, however, no response of that legal notice was received and therefore he has filed the present complaint for a refund of his amount of Rs. 17,000/-, compensation and litigation cost with interest. The complainant has also filed an application for condonation of delay of five months in filing the complaint.
2. The application for condonation of delay has been considered by the Commission and the same has been allowed vide order dated 08.06.2018. Thereafter, notice was issued to the OP. None has appeared on behalf of OP and as such OP was proceeded, Ex.-parte vide order dated 14.11.22. The complainant has filed his ex parte evidence and has filed the bank statement as Ex. CW1/1, showing withdrawal of the 17,000/- from his account, copies of the complaint made to the higher authorities as Ex. CW1/3, (colly) along with a copy of the Aadhaar card and the legal notice.
3. Since the OP has been proceeded ex-parte, therefore the allegations made by the complainant remained unrebutted and deemed to be admitted by OP.
4. The perusal of the bank statement shows that the money has been withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant with OP on 05.09.2015 by 4 transactions of Rs.5000/-, Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2000/- in an interval of one minute and the total transaction has been completed in less than five minutes, at the time of 17:20:25 SWT, 17:21:55 SWT, 17:22:20 SWT, 17:24:01 SWT respectively through online banking by using the App “PayU”. The complainant is a poor person and works as helper in a company. This account was also been opened by his company. This is pertinent to note that the complainant has made his grievances before the higher authorities of OP but despite that OP has not responded, which in itself is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. However, the documents on record also show that the complainant filed his grievances with the police and with the OP’s higher authorities for the first time on 08.11.2017, i.e. almost nearly after two years from the date of withdrawal of the amount, 05.09.2015, from the complainant’s account.
5. As per RBI circular RBI/2017–18/15, dated 06.07.2017, the ‘limited liability’ clause of a customer states that if a complaint is being made beyond seven working days, then the customer liability shall be determined as per the ‘Bank’s Board Approval Policy’. This is also provided that in such cases banks shall provide the details of their policy in regard to customers liability formulated in pursuance of these directions at the time of opening the accounts. Banks shall also display their approved policy in the public domain for wider dissemination. The existing customers must also be individually informed about the bank’s policy.
6. Since OP has not appeared to explain its stand, this commission is deprived of the opportunity to know OP’s stand.
7. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that since the money has been taken out of the account of the complainant through an online app and his complaints with OP remained unaddressed and non-consideration of the complainant’s grievance amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of OP, therefore, OP is directed to pay Rs.17,000/- as taken out from the amount of complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to the indifferent, negligent and careless attitude of the OP towards complainant grievances and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.  However, since the complainant has filed the claim beyond the statutory period, no interest is granted to the complainant from the date of transaction till the date of Order. 
8. The above-said order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receiving of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @6% p.a. from the date of order till its actual realisation by the complainant.
9. A copy of the order be given to the parties as per CPA rules and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room after uploading the order on the website.
10. The complaint case could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of case before the Commission. 
11. The order contains –05 pages each bears our signature.   

Pronounced on –06.06.2023