IDBI BANK LTD Vs. R SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant IDBI bank Ltd. against the order dated 05.09.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC No.35/2006.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of the first appeal are that the Complainant/respondent holds and maintains a savings account with the OP/Appellant Bank. The OP Bank offered to its customers a card known as "World Currency Card" that can be used outside India for all expenses in foreign currency upon remitting a particular amount in Indian Rupees in advance with IDBI Bank. This particular card can be used abroad in ATM to withdraw cash (in dollars, pounds etc.) and also to pay at the electronic terminal (EDC Terminals) of the merchant establishments in foreign currency. It is the case of the complainant that on 17.10.2005, while staying in the University in Leicester, UK complainant's son attempted to pay for the accommodation fees using the above said card. However, when the card was swiped in the electronic terminal (EDC Terminal) the transaction was declined and the display showed "Not authorized". In total, three attempts were made by the complainant's son to swipe the card but there was no response in respect to the attempted withdrawals. The amount that was transacted to be paid towards University accommodation fees was 588.45. As a result, Complainant's son could not make the payment of his accommodation fees on time and faced humiliation. Upon being informed about this incidence, complainant immediately accessed the card account online through the net banking facility provided by the bank in order to verify the status of the card account. He found that one transaction of 588.45 and two transactions of 300 each totalling to 1188.45 had been debited to the card account even though the transactions had failed. Hence, complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Commission, Chennai alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 and prayed for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.95,07,600 towards compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. The OPs filed their written version stating that on 17.10.2005, complainant's son swiped the card in a EDC Terminal for paying the accommodation fees for 588.45 and instantly the transaction was honoured by the OPs as seen from the Log of transactions in respect of the said order. However, it seems that the transaction was declined at the merchant establishment and the EDC Machine display showed "not authorized". The OPs submits that immediately after the above said swipes the complainant's son swiped the card for two amounts of 300 British Pounds each and the same were honoured by the OPs. It appeared that the said two transactions were also displayed as not authorized in the merchant establishment EDC machine. Upon receiving an email dated 19.10.2005 from the complainant about the said incident, OPs immediately sent a dispute form to the complainant's son to be duly filled and signed by him, so as to enable the OPs to credit back the amount. OP submitted that as per the VISA guidelines and regulations, if the transaction was not processed within the stipulated time limit, the transaction date should be more than 6 calendar days prior to the processing date. Therefore the issuer bank has to wait for a mandatory period of more than 6 calendar days to see whether a request for the transaction amount comes from the acquirer bank. Only when there is no such request within the period, the issuer bank can credit back the amount to the customer's account after the said period. OP stated that they did not decline the three transactions as there were enough funds in the account to honour the transaction. Once the request comes from the Acquirer Bank for the release of funds, the same is to be honoured. OPs had promptly credited the said amount to the complainant's account on 27.10.2005 and there is no deficiency on their part, as alleged. Rejecting the pleas and arguments of OPs, State Commission partly allowed the complaint and held OPs liable for deficiency in service on their part as the incidence had caused severe inconvenience, suffering and mental agony to the complainant and his son. State Commission directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation to the complainant.

(3.) Hence the present appeal.