BANK PULLED UP FOR UNAUTHORISED DEBIT
Unauthorised debit:
A complainant stated that he had deposited a cheque on March 26, 2010 and the amount was duly credited to his account. However, the same was reversed by the bank on the next day without assigning any reason. The bank submitted that the drawer of the cheque had issued ‘stop payment instruction' in writing on March 26, 2010 as the ‘cheque was stolen' and so it reversed the entry as a precautionary measure. On examination, it was observed that the bank was deficient in providing services as it had first cleared the cheque and subsequently reversed the same on receiving the stop payment instruction later from the drawer, which was in violation of the banking practice and para 8.4.a of the BCSBI codes. The bank had thus debited the account without any authority. The bank was directed to credit Rs 2.99 lakh being the amount of cheque plus an interest at the rate applicable to SB account.
Fraudulent transactions against lost credit card:
The complainant collected his ATM card personally from the DEF Bank. He had reportedly never used the card for he had misplaced it immediately on receipt itself. His card was reportedly misused at various POS which he came to know only when he got his passbook updated in mid-October 2009. Immediately he contacted the helpline to hotlist the card. The BO observed that the bank failed in its duty to provide the complainant copies of charge slips or details of the concerned merchant establishments; instead, it merely directed the complainant to contact the acquirer bank for addressees of the merchant establishments. The bank could not produce the charge-slips to the BO also. The bank also failed to do a charge-back according to the guidelines of the VISA/Master Card. BO also observed from the charge-slips produced by the complainant that the signatures on the charge slips were not reasonably matching with the signatures of the complainant on the reverse of the card. Hence, BO passed an award directing the bank to reverse all the disputed transactions. AA, while examining the appeal, observed that when the debit card itself was missing, BO had no means of confirming the signature on the lost card. As such, the question of BO verifying the signature on the reverse of the card does not arise. In a card lost scenario, it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the charge slip with that on the card, unless the lost card is found subsequently. Therefore, AA decided to the remand the complaint back to the Office of the BO for issuing fresh orders.
Non-updation of CIBIL records:
One credit card holder complained about the bank's claim against his settled credit card account dues, and non-updation of his status with CIBIL. The bank accepted that although the credit card account was settled three years ago, the status of the account could not be updated in the records of the bank with CIBIL, which was rectified subsequently. Clear negligence was observed on the part of the bank for not updating their records for more than three years, resulting in undue harassment to the complainant. The bank was directed to pay an amount of Rs 10,000 to the complainant as a token compensation for the violation of BCSBI Codes.
Cheque lost in transit by the bank:
A complaint relating to non-credit of cheque amount to the account of the complainant was received. The complainant had reportedly taken up the matter with the bank several times but there was no response by the bank. The bank reported to the BO that the cheque in question was lost in transit resulting in non-credit of the cheque amount to the complainant's account. At the instance of BO, the bank took up the matter with the issuer and got issued a duplicate cheque and the amount was credited to the complainant's account.
(Source: Annual Report of the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme)
This is part of a series on redressal of customer grievances by the Banking Ombudsmen being carried in these columns since February 9.
+1.jpg)
0 comments
Post a Comment