Date of filing : 21.07.2010
Date of order : 12.07.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE, AT VELLORE DISTRICT
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.SC.B.L., MEMBER- I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER -II
TUESDAY THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 24/2010
B.S.Ramasamy,
S/o. B.R.Subramani Mudaliar,
No. 13/5, Mari Reddy Street,
Melkrishnapuram,
Ambur-635 802. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
C.N.A. Road,
Vaniyambadi Town.
2. The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Chairman Rajagopal Street,
Ambur Town.
3. The Senior Manager,
C. Cr. Cell – Card Division, H.O.,
No.86, M.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560 001. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. G. Kalaimani
Counsel for opposite parties- 1 to 3 : Thiru. K.M. Boopathi
ORDER
THIRU.A.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and damages, pain and sufferings to the complainant.
1. The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant is a saving bank account holder with the first opposite party and his A/c no. is 951101023139. He also has ATM card facility. On 7.3.2010 he attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- by using his ATM card at Canara Bank, Ambur Branch ATM. But the transaction was declined and the slip alone came out from the ATM machine, but the amount did not come. The complainant informed the same to the second opposite party. The second opposite party in the turn told to the complainant that “it must be verified at your branch in Vaniyambadi”. Immediately he went to the Vaniyambadi branch and updated his passbook. Wherein he found that there was Rs.15,000/- have been debited from his account on 8.3.2010. After verifying his account on 17.03.2010, the complainant gave a complaint with the first opposite party and requested to re-credit the above said amount. The first opposite party gave assurance, that “we will credit the above said amount as early as possible”. But, they have not done so. Hence, the complainant made complaint through his phone to the customer care service on 16.04.2010 and same was referred to third opposite party for further action.
As per the guideline issued by the RBI, if there is any system error the amount should to be re-credited to the customer’s account within 12 working days. But the first opposite party failed to adhere to the RBI guideline. At last, on 28.04.2010 the first opposite party after a delay of 51 days re-credited Rs.15,000/- only. The complainant further states that he was in dire need of money on 07.03.2010 as his wife was admitted at CMC hospital for treatment. Due to the lethargic attitude of opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony and financial hardships. The non-action of the first opposite party is dereliction of duty on their part. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite parties are as follows:
It is admitted that the complainant have an account with the first opposite party branch and he is also having an ATM card. He had attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 07.03.2010. It has been denied that the complainant made multiple visits to the first opposite party. Further there is no such rule that the amount should be credited within 12 days of the error. The ATM’s switch office is situated at Bangalore. After receipt of the complainant, the bank immediately referred the matter to the ATM switch office. Further the said amount was given credit on 28.04.2010 along with a sum of Rs. 2,800/- as a compensation by calculating Rs.100/- per working day between 23.03.2010. to 28.04.2010. The attempt was made on 07.03.2010, the amount was given credit on 28.04.2010. It is false to state that the complainant was put to hardship and his wife was in hospital. The ATM is fully operated by computer and is an electronic device, controlled and supervised by BSNL network and operated by switch office at Bangalore. Further in general any machine is prone to error. The present error is not human made or due to any negligence. Further after receiving this complaint this respondent with due care of the customer, immediately forwarded the same to the switch office and after setting things clarified the amount was given credit on 28.04.2010. Further to compensate the delay a sum of Rs.2,800/- was also given credit to the account of the complainant. The complainant has filed this case with some ulterior motive and therefore the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. Written argument of complainant not filed. Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed. Ex.B1 marked. Written argument of opposite parties not filed. Oral argument of both parties heard.
4. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Point Nos.1&2: The complainant is having a saving bank account with first opposite party and also have a ATM card facility. On 07.03.2010, he attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- and same was declined, but on subsequent date i.e. 08.03.2010 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was debited from his account. This fact is not disputed, by the opposite party. The only defence raised by the opposite party, is that it is only a mechanical error. And the same was communicated to the ATM switch office at Bangalore. After clarifying the mistake, the said amount was re-credited on 28.04.2010. Further to compensate the delay, a sum of Rs.2,800/- was also credited to the account of the complainant. In this regard the learned counsel for the opposite party produced circular in which we found that “it is mandatory for the Bank to reimburse the customer, the amount wrongfully debited on account of failed ATM transaction within a minimum period of 12 working days, from the date of receipt of the customer complaint. Further for any failure to re-credit the customer’s account within 12 working days from the date of the complaint, the bank shall pay a compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the aggrieved customer. In the present case admittedly, the amount was wrongly debited from the complainant’s account on 08.03.2010. But it was re-credited only on 28.04.2010 without any compensation. Ongoing through the EX.B1 we find that, on 17.08.2010 the first opposite party has given a credit of Rs.2,800/- towards compensation for delayed reimbursement from 08.03.2010 to 28.04.2010. There was a delay of 51 days in re-crediting the amount. After deducting the grace period of 12 working days, still there was 39 days delay in re-credit to the complainant. But the opposite party paid only Rs.2,800/- as compensation for delayed payment, that too only on 17.08.2010 after lapse of four months. Being a nationalized bank and knowing fully well that the complainant is entitled to receive compensation for each and every day of delayed payment, but in the present case, though the opposite party gave re-credit of Rs.15,000/-, but not paid any compensation amount on that date. It shows their irresponsible attitude towards the customer, despite RBI’s circular. Further in their written version they failed to give any explanation for making compensating amount belatedly. We found that there is a deficiency of duty on part of the opposite parties. Further the purpose in which the complainant attempted to withdraw the money was really making trauma and causing mental agony as his wife was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
6. Point No.3: As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,100/- (Rupees One Thousand and One Hundred only) as penalty at 12% interest from 28.04.2010 to till the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
7. In the result, this complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,100/- (Rupees One Thousand and One Hundred only) as penalty at 12% interest from 28.04.2010 to till the date of this order and to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 12th July, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 – 10.05.2010 - Copy of the petition addressed to the secretary consumer
counsel Ambur with their endorsements
Ex.A2 - Copy of the complainant S.B. Account Pass book’s 1st
Page
Ex.A3 - Copy of Passbook entry from 25.02.2010 to 10.05.2010
Ex.A4-19.04.2010 - Copy of the notice issued by the complainants son Ponmudi
to the respondent send through the Web side message
Ex.A5 - Copy of ATM Slip
Ex.A6-30.06.2010 - Net Copy of (F A & Q) Frequently asked questions of ATM
connection with respondent banks
Ex.A7 - Copy of Family card of the Petitioner
Ex.A8 - Copy of the Election I.D. Card of the Petitioner wife by name
Malarvizhi
Ex.A9 - Copy of medical records and bills of the petitioner’s wife
Malarvizhi
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 - Statement of Accounts of opposite parties
d /Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
