STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Amrik Singh, Earlier R/o # 3233, Sector 71, Mohali, now residing at # 3254, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1]    ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051 through its Managing Director

2]    ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant opened an account, bearing No.001301579024, with the Opposite Parties, having balance of Rs.3.00 lacs, as on 23.3.2011. According to the complainant, he neither operated the said account nor used its Automated Teller Machine (hereinafter to be referred as the ATM) Card, but inspite of that his account was debited through ATM withdrawals at regular intervals, leaving a balance of Rs.4,451/-. It was stated that this fact came to his knowledge only on 10.8.2011, when he asked Opposite Party No.2, to adjust the loan amount, from his aforesaid account. Immediately, a request for blocking the ATM Card  and Internet Banking facility, as well as for providing CCTV Clippings and  detailed account statement, was made to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant had got activated the SMS alert facility,  on his mobile number, but he did not receive, even a single SMS for all these withdrawals from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, only provided account statements, but refused to provide CCTV footage. They also refused to credit the amount, aforesaid, to his account.  It was further stated that since, the Opposite Parties did not supply the CCTV footage of the ATMs, from where the money had been withdrawn, as well as the complete details of ATM withdrawals, the possibility that some of the official(s)/employee(s) of the Opposite Parties, might have done the said act, causing loss to the complainant, could not be ruled out. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were requested to investigate the matter, and take action against the erring officials, but they did not pay heed to the requests of the complainant.  It was further stated that a legal notice, to settle the grievance of the complainant, was also got served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), for directions to the Opposite Parties,  to provide the complete details of the ATM withdrawals, and the CCTV footage; take proper action against the concerned erring officials; credit the amount of Rs.3 lacs, to his account no. 001301579024; and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50 thousand, was filed.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted that the complainant was having account no. 001301579024 with them. It was also admitted that the last balance, as on 30.07.2011, in his account was Rs.4,451/-. It was stated that SMS services were provided by them, as a special facility. It was further stated that they were not responsible for final delivery of the same (SMS). It was further stated that the complainant had been provided the ATM Card, and the same was used for withdrawal of the amount. As such, the account of the complainant was debited to the tune of Rs.3 lacs. It was further stated that since, the complainant was in physical possession of the ATM Card,  as well as in the exclusive knowledge of its unique password, without which, neither it could be used, nor any withdrawal could be made, on the basis thereof, the same could not be misused, until he had shared the PIN code with somebody. It was further stated that video recording could not be provided, to the complainant,  as the transactions, as per the list, had taken place at various ATMs, that too, not belonging to the Opposite Parties, but to some other banks, which were not impleaded as parties, by him. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant had not withdrawn the amount, from the ATM through the ATM Card, then it was for him,  to lodge the FIR with the Police, for the commission of fraud, with him. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant was provided ATM Card, by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the complainant did not withdrew the amount of Rs.3 lacs, from account number 001301579024, which he was having with the Opposite Parties, through the ATM Card, but the said withdrawal was made, by some fraudulent person. He further submitted that, in case, no employee of the Opposite Parties was involved, and, as such, these were not fraudulent withdrawals, then the CCTV footage of the ATMs, could certainly be provided to him, but they failed to provide the same. He further submitted that inspite of the SMS facility, which was activated, on the mobile phone of the complainant, at the time of withdrawal, through the ATM Card, no SMS alert was given, on the said mobile phone, by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were, thus, deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in dismissing the complaint.

9.             Undisputedly, the complainant was having his Bank a/c No. 001301579024, with Opposite Party No.2. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant had been provided the ATM Card, by the Opposite Parties, and he had been using the same. The grievance of the complainant, was to the effect, that he did not withdraw  a sum of Rs.3 lacs, through ATM  Card,  from his account, aforesaid, but some fraudulent person, made such a transaction, and he was not even provided the CCTV footage by the Opposite Parties. It is, not the case of the complainant, that the ATM Card, which he was holding, was lost by him, and the same was misused by somebody else. Since the complainant was throughout,  in physical possession of the ATM Card, and there is, nothing, on the record that he disclosed his unique identification number, to anybody else, it could not be imagined that anybody else used the same, for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.3 lacs. It may be stated here, that the ATM Card could only be used, if the customer inputs his personal four digit identification number, which is selected by him (customer), and not by the Bank. However, in the interest of security, the customer is advised to retain his PIN code, in his memory, so that no one else is privy to this information. The reverse of the ATM Card has a magnetic strip and white strip for signatures of the Cardholder. The magnetic strip contains the Cardholder’s details. This Card can be used to gain entry into the ATM enclosure, by swiping it, in the access lodge. In other words, unless a person is in possession of the relevant ATM Card, and knows the four digit PIN code, the same (ATM Card) cannot be used and operated. As a matter of further precaution, in case the PIN code is entered wrongly, thrice, in succession, the ATM will swallow the Card itself or cancel it permanently. As stated above, it was not the case of the complainant, that his ATM Card, was lost, at any point of time, or somebody had stolen the same and misused the same. In the absence of  any such averment, in the complaint, when the ATM Card throughout remained in the exclusive possession of the complainant, and he was in exclusive knowledge  of the four digit personal identification number of the said Card, the question of misuse of the same, by anybody else, did not at all arise. The Opposite Party, in clear-cut terms, stated that the CCTV footage could not be provided, to the complainant,  as the transactions, as per the list, had taken place at various ATMs, that too, not belonging to them, but to some other banks which were not impleaded as a party to the complaint.  In view of the elaborate procedure, having been evolved by the Opposite Parties, regarding the use of ATM Card, referred to above, it was not at all possible, for anybody else, to withdraw the money, from the account of the complainant, through ATM,  until allowed by the complainant.  In State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla, Revision Petition No.3182 of 2008, decided on 7.4.2011, by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, similar principle of law, was laid down. In these circumstances, the District Forum, was right, in holding that for the fault of the complainant, if any, the Opposite Parties, could not be held responsible. The District Forum was also right in holding that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 

10.           Coming to the SMS alert, it may be stated here, that it was in clear-cut terms, stated by the Opposite Parties that, no doubt, SMS alert facility had been activated on the mobile phone of the complainant, but it was only their responsibility to send the SMS, which they did. Whether the same was received by him, or not, they could not say anything about the same. The complainant could not produce the record, showing as to on which dates he received how many SMS.  However, as stated above, keeping in view the elaborate procedure, evolved by the Opposite Parties, for the usage of ATM Card, receipt of SMS alert or not, would not have mattered much.

11.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

12.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order, passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.           Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free-of-charge.

15.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

September 3, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg.