Failing To Contact Customer To Resolve Issue Amounts As Deficiency In Service: Ernakulam District Commission
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Federal Bank liable for deficiency in service. It was held that the bank's failure to directly refund the excess amount to the complainant, despite the availability of contact information, constituted a deficiency in service. Brief Facts of the Case ...
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Federal Bank liable for deficiency in service. It was held that the bank's failure to directly refund the excess amount to the complainant, despite the availability of contact information, constituted a deficiency in service.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant visited Federal Bank's Perumbavoor Branch to deposit Rs. 20,000 into an account at the bank's Koratty Branch for business purposes. The complainant handed over ten bundles of cash, each containing 100 notes of Rs. 20, to the Cash Officer at the branch. Due to a heavy queue, the Cash Officer initially refused to accept the cash, requesting the complainant's consent from the Branch Manager. The Manager instructed the complainant to use NEFT/RTGS instead, but the complainant insisted on the cash deposit, which was eventually accepted after paying a Rs. 100 counting charge. The complainant argued that, per the bank's rules, only Rs. 50 should have been charged for counting currency denominations below Rs. 50. The complainant claimed that the bank's actions were illegal, causing mental distress and financial loss, leading them to issue a legal notice to the bank. As a result, the complainant approached the District Commission, alleging deficiency of service and seeking a refund of Rs. 50, along with Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and another Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the illegal charge, as well as Rs. 25,000 as the cost of proceedings.
Contentions of the Bank
The bank contended that the complaint was neither legally nor factually maintainable, asserting that it was filed to extract money through a fabricated story of alleged indecent behaviour and mental agony. The bank acknowledged that the complainant visited to deposit Rs. 20,000 in small denomination notes into an account. The bank denied the claim that the Cash Officer directed the complainant to use NEFT/RTGS or that the complainant expressed concerns about delays. According to the bank, the Cash Officer accepted the notes without delay and completed the transaction within 10 minutes, after which the complainant left without any grievances. The bank admitted that the Cash Officer mistakenly collected Rs. 100 as a counting charge instead of the correct amount of Rs. 59 (Rs. 50 as per the rule plus Rs. 9 GST). Upon realizing the error after receiving the legal notice, the excess amount of Rs. 41 was credited to the beneficiary's account, as the complainant did not have an account with the bank. The bank argued that there was no deficiency in service since the excess amount had already been refunded and maintained that the complainant was not entitled to any relief.
Observations by the District Commission
The District Commission thoroughly reviewed the case, considering the evidence and documents presented by both sides. It was observed that, according to the bank's circular, only Rs. 50 should have been charged as counting fees for the ten bundles of Rs. 20 notes deposited by the complainant. However, the bank mistakenly charged Rs. 100. Although the bank later credited the excess amount of Rs. 41 to the beneficiary's account, this was done only after the complainant had sent a legal notice. The Commission found the bank's justification for not refunding the amount directly to the complainant, due to the lack of an account with the bank, unreasonable. The Commission emphasized that the bank could have contacted the complainant directly to resolve the issue but failed to do so, leading to a deficiency in service.
As a result, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the bank to refund the excess Rs. 50 charged, pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of proceedings.
Case Title: E.A. Baby Vs. Federal Bank
Case Number: C.C. No. 423/2017