Haryana

Ambala

CC/282/2023

SH ASHISH SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH SHARMA.

18 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	282 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	04.09.2023
Date of decision	:	18.12.2024

Sh. Ashish Sharma aged about 30 year's s/o Sh. Siya Ram Sharma r/o house no. 38, Dayal Bagh, Ambala Cantt, Pin Code: 133001. (M: 8888236020)

  ……. Complainant.

                                                                            Versus

State Bank of India, Mahesh Nagar Branch, O/A Near Brahma Kumari Chowk, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, Pin Code: 133001 (Through its Branch Manager).

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Party

Before:            Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                         Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

            Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Complainant in person alongwith Ms.Shalini Raghav, Advocate.                                                                                                                      Shri Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) and prayed for issuance of directions to it, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) to the Complainant, along with interest @ 18% p.a till the actual realization, as compensation for the financial loss and mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant including the cost of the Litigation and rehabilitation or Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having a Savings Bank account vide Account number 20260562576 with the OP. On 06.07.2023, some unauthorized/illegal transaction/charges vide.00000014633DOM surcharge/tips dt040 was deducted as a debit from the account and was made from his account without his consent or authorization or without any mandate. The above said account of the complainant showed an unauthorized/illegal and fraudulent debit transaction of Rs.1.23/- (One Rupees and Twenty Three Paisa), which was debited from his account on 06.07.2023. On 06.07.2023, complainant has not made any such transaction of the wrongly charged amount but the transaction was reflected as mentioned above. Debit charges/transaction had been made illegally by the OP from the complainant's Account without his consent/mandate and without authorization of the complainant, which caused the breach of the privacy of the account of the complainant and also showed the vulnerability of the account of the complainant being not protected by the OP. It is thus established that any wrong/illegal/unauthorized/fraudulent transaction of any amount can be easily made without the consent of the complainant from his account. No authorization and no approval was sought by the OP before the wrong/fraudulent/unauthorized debit transaction/charges and no OTP was sent by the OP before the debit and also a single message was received by the complainant after debit, stating that on 06.07.2023 at 6:58 the account of the complainant has a debit by transfer of Rs. 1.23 and no other detail was mentioned and shared by the OP.  It is the duty and legal obligation of the OP to obtain the permission before any debit from its customers account even when the debit is legal or illegal.  The complainant visited the branch of the Opposite Party on next day as and when the branch Opened without any delay to inquire about the abovesaid unauthorized/fraudulent Debit transaction/Charge and in order to obtain all necessary and relevant information about the transaction. Complainant had visited the concerned branch of the Opposite Party several times, in order to get the information about the unauthorized Debit transaction/charge, but no information was provided by it. Complainant served legal notice dated 21.08.2023, upon the OP, which was duly received by it on 22.08.2023, but it did not reply the same. By not providing the information, the OP has not only committed deficiency in providing service but has also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

3.                 Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no locus standi and no cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that in the present case pertains to deduction of a mere Rs.1.23 from the account of the complainant. The amount of Rs.1.23 was deducted from the account of the complainant due to the fact that whenever a ticket is booked on the IRCTC platform using SBI Gateway, a surcharge is charged and since the IRCTC revised the surcharge rate so there was a deficit of as much amount that has been deducted from the complainant's account and the same revised rates were released in the public domain which was easily available on the bank's website. It is further stated that whenever a user does any sort of transaction surcharge is applicable on such transaction and it is presumed that the user has consented for such amount. No separate authorization is required from the user. Thus the allegation of the deduction being without authorization is totally baseless. It is further stated that the bank is also a custodian of public money and thus it cannot afford to not keep an account of the difference of any money since it cannot spend the money which it is a guardian of. It is further stated that the complainant could easily enquired about the deduction of meager amount of Rs.1.23, from his account, but he deliberately chose to initiate the present complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.

4.                 Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainant.  Learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Jambhika Godara, Branch Manager of the OP Bank-State Bank of India, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP1/A alongwith document as Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file and have also written arguments filed by complainant and learned counsel for the OP.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 06.07.2023 an amount of Rs. 1.23/- was deducted from bank account of the complainant as a surcharge in relation to an IRCTC ticket booking. He further submitted that no prior consent was obtained before the deduction of the surcharge. Simply publishing a notice on the bank’s website regarding the revised surcharge rate is insufficient as the complainant was not personally notified through any direct means (such as email or SMS) about the change in the surcharge rate.

7.          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP-Bank submitted that whenever an IRCTC ticket is booked through the bank’s gateway, a surcharge is applied. He further submitted that surcharge rate had been revised by IRCTC, leading to a deficit in the required surcharge amount, which was then deducted from the complainant's account. He further submitted that the surcharge was applied in accordance with its usual practice for IRCTC bookings made through its payment gateway. He further submitted that the revision of the surcharge rate was duly communicated on the bank’s website, and it is the responsibility of customers to stay informed. He further submitted that the surcharge adjustment was necessary due to a deficit caused by the change in rates.

8.                 The issue for consideration in this case is whether the surcharge deduction of Rs.1.23/- from the complainant’s account by the OP-Bank was carried out without the complainant’s consent and whether such an action constitutes a deficiency in service.

9.                 Upon examining the matter, it is clear that the complainant did not provide explicit consent for the deduction of the surcharge, yet, an amount of Rs. 1.23/- was deducted from bank account of the complainant as a surcharge in relation to an IRCTC ticket booking on 06.07.2023, as is evident from the account statement and bank details (Annexures C-1 and C-2). The OP-Bank’s reliance on a notice published on its website regarding the surcharge increase is insufficient to establish informed consent by the complainant. It is an established practice that consumers must be notified personally about changes in charges, particularly those that directly impact their accounts. Even as per the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BCSBI) Code, which governs the conduct of banks and financial institutions, any increase in charges or fees/charges, must be communicated to the customer. This communication should be made through direct channels such as email or SMS alerts, ensuring that the customer is fully aware of the changes. In the present case, the OP-Bank has failed to provide such a notice, either by email or SMS, before implementing the surcharge adjustment, sent to the complainant.

10.               Furthermore, The Punjab State Commission, in Shir Dharam Pal Kansal and another Versus Bank of India, CC No.35 of 1992 decided on 29.09.1993 & in Central Bank of India Versus Raj Kumar Jain, Appeal No.506 of 2005 decided on 09.11.2005 and also Himachal Pradesh Commission in State Bank of India Versus M.R. Sagrik and another, Appeal No.29 of 2003 decided on 16.05.2006 have held that any changes in banking charges/fees must be communicated to the customer with prior consent. The failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service.

11.           In view of the above facts and applicable legal principles, it is evident that the OP-Bank’s action of deducting the surcharge of Rs.1.23/- from the complainant’s account without obtaining his prior consent constitutes deficiency in service. The OP-Bank’s practice of publishing the notice on its website, without ensuring direct communication, is not sufficient. Under these circumstances,
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP, to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in providing service and mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant inclusive of litigation expenses, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which the aforesaid amount shall further entail interest @6% p.a. from the date of default, till realization. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

 Announced:- 18.12.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President