The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt. G. Venkateswari (President), Smt. P. Vijaya Durga (Member) and Sri Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Union Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for its failure to investigate a couple of unauthorized transactions made from the Complainant’s account. The District Commission emphasized the responsibility of the bank to promptly address customer complaints and conduct investigations.
Brief Facts:
Mr. Polamarasetty Satyarao (“Complainant”), holding an account with the Sheelanagar branch of the Union Bank of India (“Bank”), discovered unauthorized deductions of Rs. 45/- and Rs. 5,000/- from his bank account. The Complainant didn’t receive any notification from the bank regarding the same. Thereafter, the Complainant made several communications with the bank but didn’t receive any satisfactory response from the bank. Despite sending a legal notice, the Complainant didn’t receive any response from the bank. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”).
In response, the bank denied the deductions but stated that the deductions were done through Aadhaar Card validation. It also pointed out the Complainant’s failure to provide evidence of ineffective communication. It suggested the possibility of misuse through thumb impressions or transactions in another bank using the Complainant’s Aadhar Card. Lastly, it contended that the bank didn’t initiate the transactions.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that after the unauthorized transactions, despite the communications, the bank did not provide a satisfactory response or conduct an investigation into the Aadhar Card-linked deductions of the Complainant. The District Commission held that it was largely impractical that the transactions were carried out using Aadhar Cards elsewhere. In the context of advanced technology, the District Commission emphasized the responsibility of the bank to promptly address customer complaints and conduct investigations.
Therefore, the District Commission held that the bank neglected its duty to respond to the Complainant’s concerns promptly. It noted that the bank failed to investigate the unauthorized deductions or take immediate action after the complaint. Consequently, the District Commission held the bank liable for the deficiency of service.
The District Commission directed the bank’s branch and head office to jointly and severally refund Rs. 5,045/- to the Complainant. Additionally, the District Commission directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and pay Rs 5,000/- for the litigation costs.
Case Title: Polamarasetty Satyarao vs Union Bank of India and Anr.
Case No.: CC/320/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: P Gangamma
Advocate for the Respondent: P Sakuntala
