In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 213 / 2007 1) Anitha Chellakrishnan, JA1, Sector-II, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700098. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) ICICI Bank Limited, 3A, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-19. 2) ICICI Bank House, 3A, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-19. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 2 2 Dated 1 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9. Complainant Anitha Chella Krishnan by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 11.7.07 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.p. ICICI Bank of restoring the illegal debit amount Rs.9525 back in the A/C no.0034001500116 and for compensation of Rs.5000/- and for an enquiry to be ordered for wrongful and illegal issuance of add-on card. Fact of the case in short is that the complainant applied for credit card from the o.p. for herself in November, 2003 and credit card bearing no.477460639831009 was received by the complainant. But no add-on card was supplied by the o.p. to the complainant. But it is now learnt that an add-on card was operated by the complainant’s husband, but neither the complainant nor her husband ever signed on any such card and no add-on card bearing no.4477460339831109 was ever delivered either to the complainant or to her husband, so using of such card does not arise at all. But surprisingly the complainant was called upon the o.p. to submit all charges slips to them is four in numbers, but only one charge slip was sent to the complainant and the signatures also do not belong either to the complainant or to her husband which were forged by somebody, who had custody of add-on card. Moreover, showing the use of credit card at Kolkata between the 5.1.04 to 11.1.04 of total sum of Rs.16854 cannot be accepted as the husband of the complainant was not in Kolkata., but in Delhi for his official training. On 15.1.04 the complainant informed the o.p. by e-mail, telephones etc. but the o.p. has not taken any action against it. Sometimes in the month of May, 2006 o.p. wrongfully and illegally blocked the personal savings bank account of the complainant bearing no. 003401500116 with the o.p. and also illegally had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9525/- from the said account. This is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice and accordingly, the complainant has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer. Decision with reasons : It appears on perusal of the record vide order no.8 dt.1.1.08 “It is appearing from the undelivered envelop that the o.p. has refused to accept he notice. Accordingly, service of notice upon the o.p. is deemed to be accepted. To 14.2.08 for appearance and filing w/v”. But as he o.p. did not appear on 14.2.08 ex parte hearing has been fixed. It is the main allegation of the complainant that no add-on card was applied for by the complainant either in the original application form or at any subsequent time. But the o.ps. on the basis of the alleged add-on credit card has debited amount of Rs.9525/- from his account no.0034001500116 and o.ps. had not allowed free operation from the complainant’s account. We have also perused the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant and therein she has also stated that she never applied for any add-on card, but she applied for a credit card from the o.p. in November, 2003 and that credit card was received by her bearing no.477460639831009. As the o.ps. have not come to contest this case there is no scope to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant and the allegation of the complainant that withdrawal of sum of money of Rs.9525/- by the o.p. from the account of the complainant being no.003401500116 is not only illegal, but amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. We have also perused the BNA submitted by the complainant on 30.4.09 and noted the points mentioned therein and the BNA as a whole speaks of illegal debiting of sum of Rs.9525/- by the o.ps. and the said amount should be restored to her original account as mentioned earlier and blocking of savings bank account of the complainant by the o.ps. is not only undesirable, but also amounts to deficiency of service. Having due regard to the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as ordered hereunder. Hence, Ordered, That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.ps.. The o.ps. are directed to restore the debited amount of Rs.9525/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred twenty five) only back in the account of the complainant bearing no.0034001500116 immediately and the complainant is permitted to have the facility of free operation of the said account. The o.ps. are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. The o.ps. are also directed to pay the grand total of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand) only positively within thirty days from the date of passing this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_____ _____Sd-_______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
