Clearing the Reply to a Double-Debit Complaint
An RRB branch receives a written complaint from Ramesh Yadav, a savings account holder, who withdrew Rs.15,000 from the branch ATM on 3 February. The machine dispensed the cash, but his account shows two debits of Rs.15,000 each. He telephoned the branch helpline on 4 February and was told to wait; no complaint number was logged. On 12 February he writes again, stating that Rs.30,000 is gone from a balance of Rs.41,500, and that he will approach the RBI Integrated Ombudsman if he hears nothing. The branch manager drafts the following reply and asks you to clear it before dispatch:
"Sub: Regarding your complaint Dear Sir, We are sorry for the inconvenience caused to you. Your complaint regarding double debit has been forwarded to our technical team who is looking into the matter. The amount will be credited in your account shortly. Kindly bear with us. If you have any further query, please do the needful. Thanking you, Branch Manager"
The bank's stated turnaround time for failed or duplicate ATM debits is five working days from the date of complaint, after which compensation of Rs.100 per day applies.
1. Identify four specific weaknesses in the draft and explain the risk each creates for the branch.
Read the worked answer
No complaint or reference number. The customer has nothing to quote and the branch cannot link the letter to a case file. If the matter reaches the Ombudsman, the bank cannot show a dated trail, and the customer can credibly claim the complaint was never registered.
"Shortly" instead of a date. The promise is unenforceable, invites a second complaint, and silently extends the bank's own five-working-day turnaround. The draft also never mentions the Rs.100-per-day compensation, so the customer will assume it is being withheld.
The 4 February call is not acknowledged. By dating the matter only from the 12 February letter, the bank appears to restart its own clock - conduct that reads as evasion and is precisely what triggers escalation. The first contact date governs the turnaround, whether or not the helpline logged it.
No owner, no contact, no facts. "Our technical team who is looking into the matter" names nobody; "do the needful" is meaningless filler; and the letter never states the disputed amount (Rs.15,000) or the transaction date. A reply that cannot be acted on is functionally no reply.
2. Rewrite the substantive body in about 70 words, fixing the defects.
Read the worked answer
"Dear Mr Yadav,
Reference: BR/ATM/2025/0417. We confirm your complaint of 4 February about a duplicate debit of Rs.15,000 on 3 February at our branch ATM, leaving a balance of Rs.11,500 as against the correct Rs.26,500. The duplicate amount will be credited by 19 February. If it is not, compensation of Rs.100 per day will be credited automatically, without your asking. Please contact the undersigned on 0XX-XXXXXXX for updates.
Sincerely, Branch Manager"
Why this works: a reference number makes the case traceable; a stated amount and date show the bank has verified the transaction rather than merely sympathised; a firm credit date replaces "shortly"; the compensation clause is volunteered rather than extracted; and a named contact with a telephone number gives the customer a route that is cheaper than the Ombudsman.
3. The helpline call of 4 February was never logged. Which date should the branch treat as the complaint date, and why does it matter for the Ombudsman route?
Read the worked answer
Treat 4 February as the complaint date. A bank cannot benefit from its own logging failure: the customer made contact through the bank's official channel and was told to wait. Adopting 12 February would give the branch an extra eight days of turnaround it is not entitled to, and a reviewing authority would treat that as a service deficiency in itself.
Consequences. The five-working-day turnaround runs from 4 February, so the compensation clock has already started; the reply should therefore credit the amount immediately rather than promise a fresh five-day window. Staff must be instructed to issue a reference number on every call, because an unlogged call is indistinguishable from no call in any later dispute.
Ombudsman exposure. Under the RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, the customer must first complain to the bank and may escalate if there is no reply within 30 days or if the reply is unsatisfactory. A vague letter is therefore worse than a firm one: it satisfies neither limb, keeps the file open, and hands the customer a documented example of evasive handling to attach to the escalation.