CUSTOMER IS KING

CONSUMER RIGHTS VINDICATED
Banks held accountable for ATM services
"Offering ATM facility to consumers is a 'service' and
banks are accountable for it", this is the categorical
message that has been given to banks by the Consumer
Court. Mr. Devender Pratap Singh had a saving bank
account with the State Bank of India, under which the
bank extended to him ATM facility. Once when he tried to
withdraw Rs.800 from his SBI account ATM in his native
place Bulandshahar, he was unable to complete the
transaction. The ATM showed that his account balance
was Rs.249.47, even though actually he had Rs. 25565 in
his account. When Mr. Singh came back to Delhi, he
contacted the SBI Branch Manager who confirmed that he
indeed had sufficient balance. When Mr. Pratap filed a
case against SBI in consumer court for deficiency in
service, the bank contended that ATM services do not fall
in the ambit of being called a 'service' under the
Consumer Protection Act, as banks do not charge any
consideration from the consumer for this facility.
Therefore no question arises for any liability on this
account.
The State Commission did not agree with the contention
of the bank and explained the meaning of 'service' under
the Act to the bank. The Commission also observed that it
was neither a case of ATM failure nor malfunction and it
was indeed "the grossest kind of deficiency in service on
the part of those who are maintaining and feeding the
ATMs".
The State Commission upheld compensation of Rs.4000
and Rs.1000 as cost of litigation awarded by the District
Forum to the consumer.
SBI vs Devender Pratap Singh, IV (2006) CPJ 167

Mobile recharge voucher's validity change
penalised
Mr. Pradyumna Kumar Mishra of Cuttak purhased a
mobile recharge card for Rs.200 which had a validity
period of 30 days. However on the 20th day Mishra found
he could no longer make outgoing calls.
When Mishra enquired from Reliance Telecom about the
same, he was told that the validity period of the smart
card had been reduced from 30 days to 20 days and the
same had been published in newspapers. Mishra's
contention was that the mobile recharge card explicitly
said that it was valid for 30 days therefore the service
provider cannot unilaterally reduce the validity period to
twenty days.
When Mishra took the case to Cuttak District Forum,
Reliance's contention was that the relationship between
the consumer and the company was a contractual one
and was governed by the service terms and conditions set
out in the subscriber enrolment form.
While the Cuttak District Forum rejected Mishra's plea,
the Orissa State Commission held that the arbitrary and
unilateral action of the service provider in reducing the
validity period indeed amounted to deficiency in service.
During the period that the his phone calls were barred,
the consumer must have chosen some other mode of
communication by spending additional money.
The Commission assessed the compensation at Rs. 5000
and allowed Rs.1000 as costs of litigation.
Pradyumna Kumar Mishra vs Reliance Telecom Ltd,
I (2007) CPJ 421