Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh          ……….President

The Complainant has filed this case against the O.P. under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and praying for the following order / reliefs :-

1. Direction against the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 1,300/- as compensation to the complainant as per RBI Guidelines which is Rs. 100/- only per day after T+5 days till the day of refund of the debited amount.
2. Direction against the O.P to pay a sum Rs. 1,00,000/- only for harassing the complainant for months.
3. Direction against the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of legal proceedings.
4. Any other relief/ reliefs to which the complainant is entitled.           

            BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. The complainant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen / the complainant is a consumer as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019/ the complainant is a customer of the OP Bank having Savings Bank A/C No. 20206771200 / the OP has issued Debit Card  against the Bank A/C Number and the Card is being in No-  4786-7910-2206-9773.
2. That, on 27.01.2023 the complainant had used his Debit Card  at hotel Dolly Inn, Siliguri to pay an amount of Rs. 839/- which was failed and as a result of which the complainant had made the payment in cash/ the complainant subsequently saw that, the said amount was deducted from his Savings Bank Account.
3. The complainant thereafter called the Customer Care Number of the OP on several times but they could not help the complainant at all
4. That, on 05.02.2023 the complainant sent email to the OP at
5. That, again on 11.02.2023 the complainant sent another email to the OP as reminder at
6. That, on 14.02.2023 when the complainant checked his Saving Bank Account at around 10:15 PM he find that, the said amount was refunded on 14.02.2023 but no compensation was given as per RBI Guidelines/  when the refund is made after T+5days customer is eligible to get a compensation @ 100/- per day. / On 14.02.2023 the complainant sent email to the OP at
7. That, on 17.02.2023 and 21.02.2023 the complainant sent further reminder emails to the OP at
8. That, the complainant thereafter approached CA &FBP, Siliguri and a date of mediation was fixed there from on 03.05.2023 when the OP appeared but failed to provide any positive solution of the issue of the complainant and as a result the mediation was dropped.
9. That, again on 12.07.2023 the complainant sent email to the OP at
10. That, again on 01.08.2023 the complainant sent email to both the email id but none of them responded.
11. That, finally on 10.08.2023 the complainant sent email at
12. That the cause of action of this case arose on 27.01.2023 when the amount was deducted from the Savings  Account of the complainant but payment was failed which is continued as the complainant sent emails to the OP and the same is continued when the mediation was failed before the CA & FBP, Siliguri and the cause of action is also continued even after sending emails to the higher official of the OPs but no positive solution was provided to the complainant and the said cause of action is still continuing.
13. That, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

Ld. Advocate of the Complainant files the following documents in support of his complaint- :

1. Screenshot of amount deduction.
2. Screenshot of amount refund.
3. Copy of RBI Guidelines.
4. Copy of emails.
5. Photocopy of application for mediation.
6. Photocopy of Order dated 03.05.2023 by CA & FBP, Siliguri.

Notice was sent from this Commission to the OP. On receipt of notice, the O.P appeared before this Commission through Ld. Advocate,  filed written version, denied all the material allegations of the Complainant.  In the written version, the OP has stated that, this case is not maintainable in fact and law. In the written version the OP has stated that, the complaint is not maintainable against the OP as all the grievances of the Complainant are based on alleged non compliance of RBI Guidelines, which it at all is there, needs to be agitated before the Banking Ombudsmen for resolution. The OP has further stated in the W/V that, there was no deficiency in service or any unlawful trade practice on their part and the complainant has admittedly received the refund of the unpaid amount on 14.02.2023 and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. By filing W/V, the OP praying for dismissal of this case on the ground that, the complainant has filed this case unnecessarily against the OP and seeking relief.

Having heard the Ld. Advocates of both the parties and perusal of the written version of the OP and documents filed by the parties, the following points are to be considered by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERARTION     

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of her Complaint?

                   Decision with Reasons

   All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed written deposition in the form of an Affidavit. In the written deposition the Complainant has specifically corroborated the contents of the statements so made in his written Complaint. The Complainant in his written deposition has specifically stated that he is customer of the OP Bank having his Saving Bank Account being No. 20206771220 and he also stated that a Debit Card  was given to the Complainant by OP Bank against the said account being Card No. 4786-7910-2206-9773. The Complainant has further corroborated on which day he used his Debit Card for making payment of Rs. 839/-. He further specifically stated that the said transaction was failed but subsequently he became astonished to find that the said sum of Rs. 839/- was deducted from his Saving Bank Account which was maintained by the OP Bank. It is further corroborated by the Complainant in his written evidence that on several occasions he not only informed the said matter to the OP but also to its higher officials through email but they did not respond. The Complainant has also stated in evidence that on 14.02.2023the OP refunded the sum of Rs. 839/- in his bank account but the OP did not pay the compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day from the date of T+5 days as per Guidelines of the RBI and for which the Complainant sent emails to the OP as well as to its higher officials requesting to pay compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day for a period of 13days which the OP causes delay for making refund amount.

At the time of argument, the complainant himself who is a layer argued that, he has been able to prove the case against the OP not only by adducing written evidence but also by producing several documents including the emails addressed to the OP as well as its higher officials. The complainant further argued that, despite refunding the sum of Rs. 839/- in the bank account of the complainant but the OP did not state anything about the payment of compensation which the OP is liable to pay as per Guidelines of the RBI. The complainant himself has further argued that there is clear deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of OP who deliberately did not pay a sum of Rs. 839/- within 5 days from the date of transaction . The complainant  praying for necessary order in this regard. 

To falsify the case of the complainant, the OP has filed written deposition in the form of an affidavit. In the written evidence the OP has corroborated the contents of their written version and specifically stated that, as the OP bank has already refunded the debited amount in the bank account of the complainant and that’s why there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In the written evidence the OP has also stated that, the complainant needs to take shelter before the ombudsmen for non compliance of the RBI Guidelines by seeking resolutions but without taking shelter of the ombudsmen the complainant has filed this case against the OP on some false allegations. By filing written evidence the OP praying for dismissal of this case.

At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate of the OP submits that, they have already filed written notes of argument and stated everything there. He also argued that, the complainant has filed this case on some false allegations by suppressing the actual fact and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank as the bank has already refunded the debited amount in the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant. It is further argument of the OP Bank that, immediately after receiving summon the bank has appeared before this Commission through its Ld. Advocate and filed their written version disclosing that, the complainant is not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 100/- per day as per RBI Guidelines and the Bank Authority also asked the complainant to go to their office for the purpose of the settlement but the complainant did not respond. It is further argument of the Ld. Advocate of the OP that, for want of cause of action against the OP the complaint is not maintainable and the grievances of the complainant are not tenable as it needs to be agitated before the Banking Ombudsmen for resolution. It is also argument on the side of the OP that, the complainant has filed this complaint which is regarding an allegation of non compliance offence of RBI Guidelines and not for any deficiency in service or for any unlawful trade practice and the OP Bank had already paid the amount which the complainant is entitled to get and therefore the OP Bank has not denied the right of the complainant. Ld. Advocate of the OP referred one decision of Synco Industries – VS- State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and other (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) and stated that, when the complicated questions of law and facts are involved forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion and he submits that, the failure on the part of the complainant such as failure in communication links, time out of sessions etc cannot be ruled out and such disputed questions of facts cannot be raised before the Forum. By filing written notes  of argument, Ld. Advocate of the OP  praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the evidence of the parties as well as documents submitted by them it is admitted fact that, the complainant is a consumer under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. It is further admitted fact that, the complainant has one savings Bank Account with OP Bank with A/C No. 20206771200. It is also admitted fact that, against the Savings bank account of the complainant the OP Bank has issued one Debit Card bearing no. 4786-7910-2206-9773. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that, the complainant was trying to make payment of Rs. 839/- on 27.01.2023 by using his debit card but it was failed and for which the complainant had paid the said sum of Rs. 839/- to Hotel Dolly Inn. It is also admitted fact by the OP that, the said sum of Rs. 839/- was debited on 27.01.2023 from the bank account of the complainant.

It is not denied on the side of the OP that, the complainant did not sent several emails to the OP as well as to its higher officials. It is fact that, despite receiving several emails the issue of the complainant was not settled by the intervention of the OP despite the complainant raised complaint with the CA & FBP Siliguri where the mediation was failed. On the other hand by sending a reply through email the OP asked the complainant to come before the Branch of the OP Bank for submitting a signed application. It is not denied on the side of the OP that, the complainant did not file the signed application with the OP Bank.

It is needless to mention here that, the OP Bank refunded the sum of Rs. 839/- in the bank account of the complainant on 14.02.2023 which is after delay of 13 days from the date of transaction. The OP Bank by submitting documents has failed to substantiate before this Commission as to why the delay of 13 days was caused in making refund of the debited amount of the complainant. On the other hand, by producing the RBI Guidelines the complainant has been able to prove the fact that, the bank authority is liable to pay @ Rs. 100/- per day to a customer if the bank authority failed to refund the amount within T+5 days. In the case in hand, the transaction was made on 27.01.2023 and the sum of money was refunded after 13 days.

From the record, it also reveals that, the complainant has filed its evidence which is supported by an affidavit. But the OP bank authority did not challenge the evidence of the complainant through putting questionnaires. It clearly presumes that, evidence of the complainant has not been challenged on the side of the OP Bank.

From the evidence on record we find that the complainant has been able to prove the fact that, on 05.02.2023 the complainant sent email to the OP requesting to refund of the debited amount which the OP did not refund within 5 days from the date of transaction and thereby the OP Bank authority has deliberately flouted the RBI Guidelines by not making refund of the debited amount within 5 days from the date of transaction which is nothing but the deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP.

It is needless to mention here that, the Reserve Bank of India had issued a Circular dated 20^th September, 2020 where it issued guidelines to all the Debit Card/ ATM Card issuing Bank who needs to pay compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day for delay in re-crediting the customers amount beyond 5 calendar days from the date of the failed transaction. It is also directed that,  the compensation has to be credited to the account of the customer without any claim being made by the customer. But in the case in hand the OP Bank neither re-credited the deducted amount in the Bank Account of the complainant suo-motu, nor the OP refunded the same on receipt of the emails of the complainant and the said act of the OP is nothing but the deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice. According to the RBI Circular the Bank is liable to pay penalty @Rs. 100/- per day to its customer if the Bank does not re-credit or reverse the payment within the specified time period and failure of transaction happens due to reasons beyond the control of the customer i.e failure of communication link or non availability of cash or time out session. 

Considering all, we are of the view that, the complainant has been able to prove its case against the OP not only through filing written evidence in the form of an affidavit but also by producing several document before this Commission. Accordingly we are also of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Hence,

               It is therefore,

O R D E R E D

           The instant Consumer Case Being no. 126/2023 is hereby allowed against the OP on contest. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1300/-(Rupees Thirteen Hundred) only to the complainant towards compensation for flouting the RBI Guidelines by not making payment of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only per day after T+ 5 days till the date of refund. The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the complainant for harassing the complainant as well as for deficiency in service. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the complainant towards cost of legal proceedings. The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

           The OP is directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which they will have to pay interest @ 7 % per annum with effect from this day till making payment of the entire amount.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.