The Ernakulam District Commission, led by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Federal Bank accountable for a deficiency in service. The Commission ruled that the bank’s failure to directly refund the excess amount to the complainant, despite having their contact details, constituted a service deficiency.
Case Summary:
The complainant visited Federal Bank’s Perumbavoor Branch to deposit ₹20,000 into an account at the bank’s Koratty Branch. The complainant provided ten bundles of cash, each containing 100 notes of ₹20, to the Cash Officer. Due to a long queue, the Cash Officer initially refused the cash deposit, asking for approval from the Branch Manager. The Manager suggested using NEFT/RTGS instead, but the complainant insisted on depositing the cash, which was eventually accepted after paying a ₹100 counting fee. The complainant argued that, according to the bank’s rules, only ₹50 should have been charged for counting notes of denominations below ₹50. They claimed this wrongful charge caused mental distress and financial loss, leading them to issue a legal notice. The complainant then approached the District Commission, alleging service deficiency and seeking a refund of ₹50, ₹5,00,000 for mental anguish, ₹5,00,000 for the illegal charge, and ₹25,000 for legal costs.
Bank’s Contentions:
The bank argued that the complaint was unfounded and intended to extract money through a fabricated claim of misconduct and mental distress. The bank admitted that the complainant deposited ₹20,000 but denied claims of delays or misdirection by the Cash Officer. They acknowledged mistakenly charging ₹100 instead of the correct ₹59 (₹50 plus ₹9 GST) but refunded the excess ₹41 to the beneficiary’s account after receiving the legal notice, as the complainant did not hold an account with the bank. The bank maintained there was no deficiency in service since the excess amount had been refunded, and argued that no additional relief was warranted.
District Commission’s Observations:
The Commission reviewed the evidence and noted that the bank’s circular specified a ₹50 fee for counting the ten bundles of ₹20 notes. The bank’s error in charging ₹100 was recognized. Although the bank eventually credited the excess ₹41 to the beneficiary’s account, this action occurred only after the complainant sent a legal notice. The Commission found the bank’s rationale for not refunding the excess amount directly to the complainant, due to their lack of an account, unreasonable. The failure to contact the complainant directly to resolve the issue was deemed a deficiency in service.
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the bank to refund the excess ₹50, pay ₹3,000 for mental agony, and cover ₹5,000 in legal costs.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa