AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 in person.
The above revision has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 30.03.2022 passed in FA No.A/16/101 dismissing the appeal and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 11.04.2016 passed in RBT/CC/13/733 whereby the complaint was allowed and following directions have been issued:
The complaint of the complainant Ganesh Maniklal Meshram against the Opponent No.1 Bank of India Through Principal Officer, Regd. Office Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 and Opponent No.2 Bank of India through Branch Manager, Gandhibag, Branch Nagpur-440002 is partly allowed jointly and severally.
The opponent No.1 and 2 Banks are directed to, within the prescribed period/date of expiry of the action period after receiving the complainant's complaint regarding wrongful deduction of amount as per Reserve Bank of India's Circular dated July 17, 2009 from 20/05/2009 to the date of re-transfer of the said amount to the account till 04/09/2012, the compensation amounting to Rs.100/- per day should be paid to the complainant.
The Opponent Parties No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant for the cost of the complaint.
The compliance of the said Order should be made by the Opponent Bank of India No.1 and 2 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the decision.
The Opponent No.3 Bank of Maharashtra is discharged from this complaint.
By making certified copies of the said Judgment available free of charge to all parties, should be given.
The complaint was filed with the allegation that the complainant was having an ATM of Bank of India. On 04.05.2009, the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.500/- from the ATM but the transaction failed and no money could be withdrawn. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.500/- was deducted from his account. The complainant made a representation to the opposite party for re-crediting that amount in his account but the opposite party has taken unreasonable time and only on 04.09.2012, the amount has been re-credited into his account with a nominal interest.
The District Consumer Forum, in the impugned order, found that there was a circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 17.07.2009 which requires that if the digital transaction fails then the bank is responsible to re-credit that amount within a period of 12 days. Inspite of the circular dated 17.07.2009, the amount was re-credited in the account of the complainant on 04.09.2012. Therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. On this finding, the complaint was allowed which was challenged by the opposite party vide FA No.FA/A/16/101 which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 30.03.2022.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the circular came into existence on 17.07.2009. It could not be applied retrospectively w.e.f. 04.05.2009. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled for any benefit of circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 17.07.2009. I fail to understand this argument. Inasmuch as after issuing this circular, it has to be followed with due diligence. But even after coming into force of this circular dated 17.07.2009, the money was re-credited in the account on 04.09.2012 i.e. after more than four years. Therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegalities. The revision petition has no merit. It is dismissed with cost of Rs.10000/-. The cost shall be credited in the account of respondent no.1 within a period of 30 days.